Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids
CNN
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. Cons ution'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, Michigan.
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.
'This is so politically incorrect'
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."
I believe men should have some say. Guys have no options what so ever, even if the child turns out not to be theirs (as I understand it). If you put your name on that child and he turns out not to be yours, you still could be stuck paying child support. That will be the ultimate in you face, you.
'bout time.
Same goes to you, the pill. Of course theres different scenerios, but in some cases its bull .
Theres been many cases where men are successfull in suein the woman for damages if the child is not theirs. fruadalent
Right, yet after the result we're liable regardless of what you decide. Its unfair bull .
Its a woman's body and her right to choose right? Well she can live with the consequences if we don't agree as well. Thats her right, too.
I echo Peter, its about damn time.
I've never been cool with women fooling thier significant others into knocking them up. thst wrong.
but I'm sorry, the guy in this lawsuit is coming off like an ass. what happened was screwed but it happened.
meanwhile he's now publicaly telling the world that he did not/doesn't want his daughter and he wishes she had been aborted. basicaly.
Also I notice the wording in the articleneatly steps around saying HIS child or HIS daughter.25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
you know alot of stuff like this (unwanted preganncy, the keep/abort/adopt question, father's rights and so on and so forth) wouldn't even be a friggin issue if people just didn't untill they were married.
Also- can't he sign away his parental rights? What is preventing him from doing that? If he doesn;t want to pay for her and wants nothgin to do with her why can;t he just sign away his parental rights?
I know 2 guys who have done that. One becaue he was honestly trying to get out of child support. The other guy didn't find out he had a daughter untill she was 7 adn his ex- gf who was newly divorced sued him for support. He was then contacted by he ex-husband ex-step dad who had raised her and ended up siginign away his rights so that the ex step dad could adopt her and then pay child support (on top of alimony, but hey that was his decision).
"18 years! 18 years! 18 years at the kid ain't his????"
- Kanye West
But seriously guys, wear a condom, no matter how she claims to be protected. You created a child and are still responsible. Even if you are having sex with a 60 year old woman, wear a damn condom!
What a . I didn't read that part. The only person I feel sorry for is the poor child. Of course, he might grow up to be someone like Bruce Bowen and his father will then want a tender father/son relationship.
woah! I didn't see that one coming... However I do believe they have a point. Its no longer a matter of using a condom or not (what if it was a defective condom?). The choice over wether or not to keep or put in adoption should be a choice made by BOTH parents, because BOTH parents are the ones who are going to have to face the responsabilities that come from having a child, not just the mother. It is not fair for the mother to be able to simply say "I'm keeping this baby, and you are paying for it", that is bull .
On the other hand, abortion is and always should be solely a decision made by the mother. She and only she has the right to decide what happens within her body. However, I believe that if she decides to have the baby, then she does so knowing that her companion has a choice in the matter of raising that baby.
You'd think the common sense approach you've taken to this issue would be widely accepted by parents everywhere. Sadly, it's not.
In the many, many abortion threads that have come and gone, those that oppose always come out with the inevitable "don't around if you can't accept the consequences."
So this should only apply to women?
What this basically says that a man can around just like he always does, only now if a child results that he doesn't want, he can just walk away. Nice.
Adoption, let the s take care of your kids. For years women have used regnancy to trap, guess the free ride's over.
I'm sure this is the motive of all unplanned pregnancies.
Thank you SW!!
If two people willingly have sex, protected or not, they have both made a choice. Therefore, they both have to deal with the consequences. If you have sex, you have an obligation to take care of the child that it produces.
The reason I agree with SW is explained quite nicely by Dre_7
What about the male that doesn't get a say when the woman wants an abortion, is that fair?
No it's not, but since the guy can not "do" the pregnancy instead of her - it is ultimatively her call.
I would also expect this situation to be much more rare than deadbeat fathers using this new "get out of parenthood free" card.
As I said the situation in your post is not fair, but what are you going to do about it? Create more frequent and more unfair situations?
Why does the women 9.9 times out 10 get to keep the kid. Men are always screwed either way when it comes to children.
I'm not saying a guy should be able to screw around and not ever have to worry about kids, but there should be options in certain scenarios.
What Trainwreck said - the flip side of this coin. Fathers who want the kid and are completley willing to assume full financial, physical, and emotional support for the child but the mother wants to abort.
Another related issue that needs to be dealt with. I know there have been a couple of lawsuits on this based on property rights (the male owns half the genetic property comprising the child) but they've failed because of Roe v Wade.
If men are allowed out of this (and Obi's right - you can always sign away your rights and be done with it) then what happens when a man wants to assert his rights to an unborn child being carried by a woman who does not wish to continue the pregnancy?
No, that's not fair. But you can't have it both ways....if you want the right to be able to relinquish any responsibility to an unwanted pregnancy, so should she.What about the male that doesn't get a say when the woman wants an abortion, is that fair?
And while I'm very much for adoption as an alternative, I also know what it's like to actually carry a child to term. I can't imagine having to go through everything that's involved with carrying a child and then giving it up...for me that would be extremely emotionally damaging. Woman that have been able to do so are in Saint status as far as I'm concerned...I don't think I could do it. And I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.
That was my point, as it stands right now, the woman has all the power when it comes to the fate of an unborn child
Naturally. Literally naturally.
And I do think men should have some rights, btw ... but how much should they have, considering they aren't the ones that have to carry it? I honestly don't think this will ever find an easy remedy.
Best way to ensure this doesn't happen to you is by not sleeping with someone, especially unprotected, that doesn't share your ideals on the subject. And if you're willing to get that intimate with someone, you should know what they are.
Or don't sleep around, period.
Yes she has, but I can't think of a better solution. And this new lawsuit is also not making it better.
Edit: Nevermind SW beat me to it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
