Court Rejects RvW for Men
Find a Conversation
|Wed, 11-07-2007 - 9:24am|
Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men'
* Story Highlights
* Federal appeals court rejects case over child support
* Man sues, saying ex-girlfriend said she was unable to get pregnant
* Court called case frivolous
* Next Article in Living »
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.
neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law 12.0pt;font-family:Forte">. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas
Cooper, February 10, 1814