www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html

Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 9:23 p.m. EST (02:23 GMT)


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.

"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."

That's hilarious!

i think the "say" stops when the rubber breaks.  then it's her call

Here's your say

so if a girl says shes on the pill and is but forgot to take it...its his fault too...hhhmmm I dont know which way Id go with this....sitting on my little wall....

PATERNITY FRAUD!

Please have that reconciled in addition to the inequity of reproductive rights of men.

Plskthx.

I think if a woman has near total control, including abortion, then the guy has the right to walk away with no responsibility at all.

I don't think either is right, but there you have it.

1) Penis gets hard.

2) You put your penis inside her.

3) You ejaculate.

-------------------------------Your rights stop here.

4) She gets pregnant.

5) She has baby.

6) You pay child support.

I'm not paying for someone else's 'fun'.

tag

Does this not seem a step in the direction of the whole abortion topic?
Some men are pro-life, some men are pro-choice.  Myselfm I found out that I am NO-Choice!
How can any man tell a woman what to do if she is impregnated...
I honestly belive that females need to hash this topic out, and men need to stay the hell out of it.

I'm on the guy's side

I am on the guy's side here too.  I think it's total BS that if an accident happens [even vasectomies aren't 100%] then the guy is totaly at the mercy of the woman and the court.  The biggest problem, as I see it, is the automatic granting of child support, despite the circumstances.

 I personally know a girl that, during her last year of college, was whoring it up with as many guys as she could trying to get pregnant.  It worked, she had a kid, and the poor sod never knew what hit him until her was served the court papers.  She never wanted a relationship, just a baby, and a check once a month for 18 years.   This kind of deception probably isn't that common, but who can tell?

The worst part is that most women, due to the nature of pregnancy, aren't exactly in a perfect condition to make rational decisions... yet their decisions can have such a drastic effect on the guy's life.

Key words...It's the child's rights that the court is enforcing.  To me that shows they lean towards stricter control of abortion, at least the court that says that does.

If a woman dupes a man into believing that she is using contraception but is actually not, she should be completely responsible for the result.

It's always an "accident" isn't it?has

I have a friend who had a kid; she cheated on him and left and she kept the kid, not giving him the right to see him at all.  By law this is ok, but if he kept the kid, it would be kidnapping.  Also, he payed for her and the babies support the whole time they were together (2 years).  She sued for 2 years back child support and won.  He doesn't get back the time he lost with his son.  This kind of stuff is BS.  Its a tough area but reform is still needed.

Then there is the question of abortion. Should a man have a say? A woman is preganant with your child and doesn't want it. You do and are willing to accept full custody of the child. Should she be allowed to kill it? If not, should she be forced to pay support?
A woman can give birth and demand support if you don't want the child. Why can't you?
I don't buy the "it's her body" arguement in this case. It's her body but it's your child as well.

Opinions?

Tough Issues and calls

I have to agree with the men on this issue. The men get f**ked (no pun intendend) to death with all this crap.

I have two sons and while I will not tell them what I think or lead them down a particular path...if ever asked I will steer them away from ever getting married or having kids

If they go that route topics like this will be tossed into the fray

yep this is a clear equal protection violation

I am in complete support with the guy on this one. I do not think that it should strictly be the woman's decision, it is a two way street, since it will drastically change everyone involved's life.  I do not understand how courts can be so onesided on this issue. There should definitely be some sort of common ground as opposed to automatically giving the children and all of the rights to the mother.

James

Quoted: Then there is the question of abortion. Should a man have a say? A woman is preganant with your child and doesn't want it. You do and are willing to accept full custody of the child. Should she be allowed to kill it? If not, should she be forced to pay support? A woman can give birth and demand support if you don't want the child. Why can't you? I don't buy the "it's her body" arguement in this case. It's her body but it's your child as well. Opinions?

Yep, that is bullshit.

If he wants it and she doesn't, he should get to keep the kid, AND collect child support from her. It also shouldn't be legal for women to have abortions without the man involved's consent.

Total agreement on this. Men have taken a legal beating on this issue for too long.

Hurry up.. lets get a bill passed..

I'm a victim of a deceitful pregnancy.

Quoted: Then there is the question of abortion. Should a man have a say? A woman is preganant with your child and doesn't want it. You do and are willing to accept full custody of the child. Should she be allowed to kill it? If not, should she be forced to pay support? A woman can give birth and demand support if you don't want the child. Why can't you? I don't buy the "it's her body" arguement in this case. It's her body but it's your child as well. Opinions?

Well sorry for this arguement but it is still in fact her body, and just because you want it does not mean you can force it upon her. And I am sure as shit that if men had babies you would not want the government telling you that you had to have the baby by court order, and the only way to really enforce that would be to rope you down until delivery, how does that sound?

Hope his suit is successful.

+1 for the men

[kanye]
If you aint no punk holla We Want Prenup
WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah
It's something that you need to have
Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half
18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his
[/kanye]

Sounds fair to me.  Too bad it will never happen.

DAM  hope this thing passes       been there done that     had no contact with child or mother       all i was a was big check each week for 18 years and yes i never wanted a child    being from ohio and the mother from another state.       you soon find yourself with no rights    just keep paying big money each week          AND  yes the bitch told me she was on the pill too  

Quoted: Here's your say www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/T-Vasectomy-White.gif

Unfortunately, many doctors wont do that procedure on a  guywho is, say, single and young. So unless you are in your 40s, married with a  few kids already here, they wont do the procedure. Spoken as a guy who has had the procedure and went thru the questioning process they put you through.

Quoted: Quoted: Then there is the question of abortion. Should a man have a say? A woman is preganant with your child and doesn't want it. You do and are willing to accept full custody of the child. Should she be allowed to kill it? If not, should she be forced to pay support? A woman can give birth and demand support if you don't want the child. Why can't you? I don't buy the "it's her body" arguement in this case. It's her body but it's your child as well. Opinions? Well sorry for this arguement but it is still in fact her body, and just because you want it does not mean you can force it upon her. And I am sure as shit that if men had babies you would not want the government telling you that you had to have the baby by court order, and the only way to really enforce that would be to rope you down until delivery, how does that sound?

If a court ordered the woman not to terminate the pregnancy (aka Kill your child) and she did, that would mean criminal and civil liability. And that sounds just fine with me.

Quoted: [If a court ordered the woman not to terminate the pregnancy (aka Kill your child) and she did, that would mean criminal and civil liability. And that sounds just fine with me.

It should be none of the courts business as long as its within the time frame for a legal abortion.

Quoted: Quoted: [If a court ordered the woman not to terminate the pregnancy (aka Kill your child) and she did, that would mean criminal and civil liability. And that sounds just fine with me. It should be none of the courts business as long as its within the time frame for a legal abortion.

I think the father should have the child if he wants it. Why kill a child if a parent is willing to raise it?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [If a court ordered the woman not to terminate the pregnancy (aka Kill your child) and she did, that would mean criminal and civil liability. And that sounds just fine with me. It should be none of the courts business as long as its within the time frame for a legal abortion. I think the father should have the child if he wants it. Why kill a child if a parent is willing to raise it?

Totally agree.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's your say www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/T-Vasectomy-White.gif Unfortunately, many doctors wont do that procedure on a  guywho is, say, single and young. So unless you are in your 40s, married with a  few kids already here, they wont do the procedure. Spoken as a guy who has had the procedure and went thru the questioning process they put you through.

That's bullshit.



And I hope this guy wins his suit.  Fraud is fraud is fraud, no matter how the state looks at it.  

Quoted: [ I think the father should have the child if he wants it. Why kill a child if a parent is willing to raise it?

The man isn't the ones who is pregnant now, is he?

Quoted: That's bullshit.

Meaning what? That I am wrong? You try going into a docs office as a 20-something single guy and saying that you want a vasectomy and then come back and  tell us what they say.

Quoted: Quoted: [ I think the father should have the child if he wants it. Why kill a child if a parent is willing to raise it? The man isn't the ones who is pregnant now, is he?

I don't see what difference that makes. It takes two people to conceive a child. If she was a willing participant and doesn't want the child the father should have the right to raise his child if he wants it.

Quoted: Quoted: That's bullshit. Meaning what? That I am wrong? You try going into a docs office as a 20-something single guy and saying that you want a vasectomy and then come back and  tell us what they say.

Not at all.  I am saying that the fact that I as a 22yr old male seeking to do the responsible thing and taking measures to not get some hit-it-and-quit-it bimbo knocked up is going to be turned down for the procedure because I am not a certain age and not married.  If they can give a 16yr old a boob-job, they can give me a vasectomy (which is reversible) at the age of 22 when I am trying to be responsible.

In a society where a woman has the option of killing the child just because she doesn't want said child, this would seem to be the next logical step.

Let's excuse everyone of all responsibility!! Hooray!! Orgies aplenty!!!

Let's all raise a glass and toast "progress", shall we???

Quoted: I think the father should have the child if he wants it. Why kill a child if a parent is willing to raise it?

Because it is about the woman's "body", not about the baby.

I have been saying this for years, and always wanted this to come up. IMO, If you father a child, you should take responsibility for the child, and support the child financially, and be a father, not just a sperm donor. With that said, If a women has the right to abort a child, without the fathers consent, which is the case in almost every, if not all states. The father should have the same right to financially abort the child before birth. IMO abortion is wrong, and so is not taking responsibility as a father for the child. This will be interesting to follow, and I hope they carry it as far as the supreme court. I want to hear the reasons why this shouldn't be legal.

Oh for God's sake...

Keep your dick in your pants, then you wont have the problem...

Quoted: Hope his suit is successful.

+1

Now if you just keep your pecker in your pants till after you're married this particular problem is solved.

See God does know what He's talking about.

For years I have said that if women want the ultimate right to make the decision, without input from the sperm donor, then it should be their responsibility.  As long as abortion is legal, any male who fathers a child out of wedlock should have the option of paying upfront for 50% of the cost of an abortion.  If the female decides to keep the child, it is her responsibility.  I don't see how anyone can argue with this.

Quoted: For years I have said that if women want the ultimate right to make the decision, without input from the sperm donor, then it should be their responsibility.  As long as abortion is legal, any male who fathers a child out of wedlock should have the option of paying upfront for 50% of the cost of an abortion.  If the female decides to keep the child, it is her responsibility.  I don't see how anyone can argue with this.

Exactly.. Now tell that to my wife after the whole "My birthcontrol and diaphragm are missing But I really used them the last time" crap. I was framed!

I'm no lawyer,but the equal protection argument seems to have a great deal of merit at first glance. Women have all sorts of "reproductive rights", but men have absolutely none? Give me a break.

Keep it in your pants until you're married and then its not an issue.  What's so difficult about that concept?