From CNN comes this report of a new lawsuit filed by an organization that claims it wants to take the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision to its logical extreme.
NEW YORK (AP) — 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.
Taking the logic of Roe to its most logical extreme, its hard to see why this argument doesn’t make sense. If a woman has a virtually unlimited right to determine her reproductive future, then why, given the existence of the Equal Protection Clause, doesn’t the same right apply to a man ?
And, arguably, the Plaintiff in the case at issue would seem to have the facts in his favor:
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.
Its unclear if the woman was knowingly deceiving him about her medical condition. If she was, then I think his argument would be stronger. Although, truth be told, its probably a doomed argument given the current state of the law:
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.
Which means that the case is probably doomed from the start.
That doesn’t mean that the argument doesn’t have merit though. If you accept the argument that a woman has a near absolute right to determine whether she does or doesn’t become a mother, than why shouldn’t a man have the same right ? And if you argue that a man doesn’t have that right, then doesn’t that call into question the existence of the “right” to abortion ?
Most amusing in this entire story, though, is this particular quote:
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.”
Unless, of course, we’re talking about the right of the child prior to birth, right Ms. Gandy ?
If you’re shocked by this story, or by my argument, then maybe its time to ask yourself if you still think Roe v. Wade was decided correctly.
Don Surber has this to say about this story:
Men who do not pay child support are vile little cretins who do not deserve to sit at the same table as civilized men. My own father went to jail before he paid for support for me and my sisters, sired during his 13-year marriage with my mother. That was in the 1960s before the federal effort to collect child support (the lawyer got 40% of the money — bastard).
That said, as long as we are going to pretend women have abortion rights, then the 14th Amendment compels us as a nation to extend this parental termination rights to men. This lawsuit should do what South Dakota’s misguided abortion ban cannot do: End abortion rights.
And Dale Franks makes this excellent point:
If women have the right not to choose to have the responsibility of having a child, then men should have the ability to make a commensurate choice. For unwed couples, then, this means that men should have the right to formally give notice of their intention not to provide parental support, if a woman chooses to keep the child. (Married couples, of course, would have mutual responsibility.)
Forget telling me that men should keep their fly zipped, or whatever. That reasoning applies equally to the woman. If she is mature enough to make a decision about whether or not to carry a child to term, then she’s surely responsible enough to keep her fly zipped, too. If the decision to have and raise a child is not a mutual one, then the party that chooses to have the child should be the only party that is legally obligated to support it. This is called personal responsibility. If the woman chooses to keep the child, and that is her decision alone, then she should be the only one who is legally obligated to bear the consequences of that decision.
I can hear the brickbats beginning to fly now.
Meanwhile, Sister Toldjah hopes that some good comes from this lawsuit.
Hopefully this lawsuit will be the spark that ignites a fruitful discussion about what rights men do have when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, because right now it doesn?t seem like they have very many.
I’m not too optimistic.
Technorati Tag: Abortion, Reproductive Rights
