row v wade for men *and no i am not talking about fishing...

[Hell's Bells]

NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men’s rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
“There’s such a spectrum of choice that women have — it’s her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions,” said Mel Feit, director of the men’s center. “I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.”

Feit’s organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.

Not expecting to win case
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

“What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is,” he said in a telephone interview. “Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started.”

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay’s case.

“The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn’t want, but it’s less fair to say society has to pay the support,” she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn’t necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn’t afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

Anger over Roe comparison
Jennifer Brown of the women’s rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men’s center comparing Dubay’s lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman’s right to have an abortion.

“Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want,” Brown said. “There’s nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.”

Feit counters that the suit’s reference to abortion rights is apt.

“Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences,” he said. “No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say.”

“The problem is this is so politically incorrect,” Feit added. “The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility.”

Feit doesn’t advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

“If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible,” Feit said. “If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

“None of these are easy questions,” said Gandy, a former prosecutor. “But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[briannell]

this sounds bad, but I am leaning towards agreement. I don't think a man should be forced into fatherhood i think people are too eager to jump into a sexual relationship and do not explore fully both the emotional and physical responsiblities of such a relationship (STD's, whom and what type of anti-pregnancy measures will be used during the course of the relationship and what are the desires of both parties in case of a unplanned pregnancy) may be just the discussion of the topic will have individuals acting more reponsible in the types of relationships they have. I can only hope good discussion comes from such a suit. I also expect he'll lose.

[Grizlaw]

It's an interesting debate, but I don't think there's any way this case will succeed.

The truth is, there is an inherent unfairness in the fact that women have all of the control over these things, but I'm not sure there's really any way the legal system can (or should) solve that problem -- it's biology; that's just the way we're made. The thing is, though, that courts and legislatures tend to make protecting the welfare of the child the overriding objective in cases like this. It's not about "punishing" the father for his actions; the primary concern is simply making sure the child is taken care of, and I don't think courts and state legislatures are ready to let children of single mothers starve just because their biological fathers would have "voted" to have them aborted.

[Hell's Bells]

there is also another way of looking at it...what if the father wants the child but the mom doesnt? i think that since we are concerned about the welfair of the child then the mom should have to goto term

[Grizlaw]

there is also another way of looking at it...what if the father wants the child but the mom doesnt? i think that since we are concerned about the welfair of the child then the mom should have to goto term

That's a fair point of view, but it raises a few issues that are really not related to this issue (like whether or not an unborn child should have legal rights -- I think everyone can agree that a child who has been born should, and I'm not sure that raising the issue of the rights of the unborn really does anything to advance this particular debate).