Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men'

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous.

Dubay, 25, had said ex-girlfriend Lauren Wells knew he didn't want to have a child and assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition.

He argued that 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.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Bay City disagreed, rejecting Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it didn't extend reproductive rights to men.

The suit was prepared for Dubay by the National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, New York., which dubbed it "Roe v. Wade for Men." The nickname drew objections from women's rights organizations.

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.

Dubay sued the Saginaw County prosecutor and Wells in March, contesting an order to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born to Wells in 2005. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal.

I am not for one sided compulsory relationships of any kind where freedom of choice is involved.

I think the judge is off base here. Society's interest has nothing to do with this: it's a choice issue, plus some deception.

A woman can walk away from a child, no questions asked (adoption)... but there's entire government agencies dedicated to making sure men pay, regardless.

Don't flame me over this - I believe wholeheartedly that men should pay child support... I've just always wondered if there was a bit of inequity in the issue.

A mother who abandons a child to its father, or who does not get custody of the child in a divorce or separation, usually DOES pay child support.

I think it's impossible for men to understand that a woman of childbearing age risks pregnancy with every act of intercourse, even if she uses birth control. The Pill usually works, but can fail in a small percentage of cases. So can condoms.

So a man can have his one-night stand and walk away with no consequences, while the woman from the same one-night stand can end up pregnant.

The ideal solution would be for people not to hook up with anyone they aren't committed to and respectful of, but in the real world, that ain't gonna happen.

Really, having to pay child support for 18 years is NOTHING compared to pregnancy, childbirth, and 18 years of solo responsibility for raising the kid from colic through teenage rebellion.

This is a bunch of whiny men angry because they don't have the cynical "love 'em and leave 'em" privileges that were formerly available to them.

I'm just opening discourse about a subject.

states have a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of the child. the enforcement of economic support of a child is well within the purview of the states to enforce that interest.

it's not really a question of gender inequality.

into having a child.

which i don't

I have known girls who have done just that.

Not me - I'm childless

If that's so, then I'm surprised. I've never known anyone who did this. I've known women *other* people have accused of such things. It's difficult to know exactly how things really go outside of an intimate relationship between two people, and when that relationship goes sour it's not unusual for the dirt to fly. It's funny that same dirt didn't fly before the relationship, however brief, broke up.

the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of minor children. the means by which the State does so (enforcing monetary support of those children) is rationally related to the legitimate state interest.


this guy had a completely dumb-ass attorney.

:shrug: :hi:

Good sense compels me to be ashamed for writing that, but the post has passed the "editable" window, so what can I do?

:shrug: :hi:

Your turn............:hi:

I can't decide which.

:shrug:

:shrug: :hi:


Your Turn

:popcorn:

Post this in GD. I dare you.

If he didn't want to be a father, he could have had his nuts clipped.

I guess this should be used as a cautionary tale. Don't believe everything your sexual partner tells you.

Mz Pip
:dem:

got a vasectomy.
Seriously, anytime you have sexual intercourse there is a chance of pregnancy. He took the chance.

I feel sorry for this child most of all- to know that her father went to court so he wouldn't have to support her. what a fucking idiot.

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

greatauntoftriplets
DU moderator

Will rectify.

Sorry, the editing period has expired.

Why should a man, who keeps telling a woman he does not want to have a child at this time, pay for a child conceived out of deception by the woman (she claims she had a medical condition that prevented her from getting pregnant).

But if a man is so dead-set against having a child then he should have been smart enough to either have a vasectomy or at least wear a condom. There is only one type of woman that is 100% unable to have a child and that is a woman who has had either her uterus or both ovaries removed. Outside of that even the worst medical condition still has an offside chance that an egg & sperm MIGHT connect.

But I've known women (mainly back in school) who deceptively told their partners that they were on the pill or fixed in a way that they can't have children and it does bug the hell out of me that they'll do this and trap a man into a situation where he's stuck for the rest of his life supporting something he never asked for ESPECIALLY if he was duped into that situation.

There is no right or wrong in this situation

She told him she was still on the pill. She got pregnant. He does the "right" thing and marries her.

Result: 40 years of misery for the both of them.

I've met women like that... but like you said there isn't any guarantee, so... maybe not sleeping with women you don't absolutely trust might be a good idea.

My doctor had prescribed an antibiotic for a sinus infection, and I had no idea that it could reduce the pill's effectiveness. Doctors need to explain this to women when they go on the pill. And when prescribing medicines, they should ask patients specifically if they are on the pill.

At the same time, all parents have a responsibility to remind their kids that if they have sex, there is a possibility that it will result in pregnancy, unless the woman has had her uterus or both ovaries removed. And I told my son that he shouldn't count on that either, unless he's seen the operation.

The sad fact is that no one should have sex who isn't ready to be a parent. Having the right to choose means just that. Now where did I put that flame-retardant suit?

and I'm NOT sharing

Been in GD/GDP today

:cry:

But here's an even more bizarre case, as if entrapment or claiming entrapment is all that bizarre.

Sperm donor ordered to pay child support
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07130/784968-100.stm

Shouldn't there be some agreement when going to a sperm bank that you are responsible for your own withdrawels

:shrug:

"There is only one type of woman that is 100% unable to have a child and that is a woman who has had either her uterus or both ovaries removed. "

But at 59, you'd certainly think so.

some of them may be getting a little extra fertility help but it is feasible.

If the Uterus and Ovaries are intact anything is possible even if the chances are very remote

The reason the ruling was the right one is that child support from a legal standpoint isn't a punitive measure against a parent for having a child. It is an entitlement of the child. It's an entitlement all children have. He has a child, and she's entitled to support from him. It wasn't the mother who won in this case. It was the child. The state upheld her rights. If a parent can prove legally that they were defrauded, then they can choose to take civil action, but that still doesn't absolve them of their obligation. It isn't the child's fault that both parents didn't want her. The fairest way is to uphold this obligation for all children. It's in the best interest of the state as well. Already overburdened safety nets would be stretched even further, which would affect pretty much everyone except the wealthy. It's not fair to the rest of us, either. I can definitely see how it would suck for a person to face parenthood when they don't want it, but that's life, unfortunately, and it's not is if there aren't ways to prevent it from happening.

He could move to another state; never talk to her again. Solves the problem. Of course he would still be an asshole.

Personally that makes HER the asshole

The "Roe v. Wade for men" suit, it was introduced during the civil suit process that the woman in question was indeed clinically diagnosed as being infertile. At least one affidavit (maybe two, sorry I read about this back during the original trial process) was filed by the woman's gynecologist who was a specialist in infertility medicine attesting to the court that according to rigorous testing, she did not have the capability of becoming pregnant due to medical issues. She was not lying about her condition. She had been diagnosed well before she entered into the relationship with the now father of her child.

It's hard for me to imagine any reasonably educated lawyer taking this case.

If people don't want to pay, they shouldn't play.