FINALLY!! Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/...atherhood_suit



NEW YORK - 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, Mich.

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.

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."

___

On the Net:

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

R wrote:

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"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."

Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception and get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need for Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^

"R" wrote in message
oups.com...

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."

Another situational argument from NOW. Usually they claim a child is not a
child until birth. They stand that argument on its head when they argue an
unborn child has rights that the court should consider.

This is going to be an interesting debate.

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"R" wrote in message
oups.com...


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."


Another situational argument from NOW. Usually they claim a child is not a
child until birth. They stand that argument on its head when they argue an
unborn child has rights that the court should consider.

This is going to be an interesting debate.

They'll get around it by arguing that the child doesn't exist as such
until birth, and that's when CS orders begin being made, so it's all good.

- Ron ^*^

Werebat wrote:
R wrote:

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"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."

Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception and get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need for Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^

It may not be fair, but this suit has a 0% chance of making it. What
will occur is that the court will claim that societies interest
outweighs the hardship placed on the man and that financial burdens are
not the same as physical ones. The Supreme Court will never even hear
it.

I think a bet suit would also focus on equal protection because of the
laws allowing women to abandon children with no consequences. Perhaps
that argument may have the same flaw, but I think it is the stronger of
the two.

wrote:

Werebat wrote:

R wrote:


Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"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."

Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception and get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need for Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^


It may not be fair, but this suit has a 0% chance of making it. What
will occur is that the court will claim that societies interest
outweighs the hardship placed on the man and that financial burdens are
not the same as physical ones. The Supreme Court will never even hear
it.

I think a bet suit would also focus on equal protection because of the
laws allowing women to abandon children with no consequences. Perhaps
that argument may have the same flaw, but I think it is the stronger of
the two.

Agreed. I was just discussing this with my GF last night.

- Ron ^*^

Werebat wrote:


wrote:

Werebat wrote:

R wrote:


Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"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."


Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception and get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need for Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^



It may not be fair, but this suit has a 0% chance of making it. What
will occur is that the court will claim that societies interest
outweighs the hardship placed on the man and that financial burdens are
not the same as physical ones. The Supreme Court will never even hear
it.

I think a bet suit would also focus on equal protection because of the
laws allowing women to abandon children with no consequences. Perhaps
that argument may have the same flaw, but I think it is the stronger of
the two.


Agreed. I was just discussing this with my GF last night.

- Ron ^*^


Aren't most legal abandonment statutes written with gender-neutral
language, basically extending the right to abandon to both women and men?

"JayR" wrote in

Aren't most legal abandonment statutes written with gender-neutral
language, basically extending the right to abandon to both women and men?

It should just be written to say that if one parent is willing to raise and
support a child, then society should not physically force to other to abide
by that supporting parents wishes. One clause should be written, if a person
abandon's their family, meaning marriage with a planned pregnancy, then they
should be held accountable.

"JayR" wrote in message
...
Werebat wrote:


wrote:

Werebat wrote:

R wrote:


Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP
National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"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."


Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception and
get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need for
Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^



It may not be fair, but this suit has a 0% chance of making it. What
will occur is that the court will claim that societies interest
outweighs the hardship placed on the man and that financial burdens are
not the same as physical ones. The Supreme Court will never even hear
it.

I think a bet suit would also focus on equal protection because of the
laws allowing women to abandon children with no consequences. Perhaps
that argument may have the same flaw, but I think it is the stronger of
the two.


Agreed. I was just discussing this with my GF last night.

- Ron ^*^


Aren't most legal abandonment statutes written with gender-neutral
language, basically extending the right to abandon to both women and men?

In the media and elsewhere, I have always heard about a "mother's" right to
abandon. Maybe someone can provide the actual texts of such laws.

"DB" wrote in message . net...

"JayR" wrote in

Aren't most legal abandonment statutes written with gender-neutral language, basically extending the right to abandon
to both women and men?

It should just be written to say that if one parent is willing to raise and support a child, then society should not
physically force to other to abide by that supporting parents wishes. One clause should be written, if a person
abandon's their family, meaning marriage with a planned pregnancy,

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the definition of family?

then they
should be held accountable.