Posted on 11/07/2007 7:00:37 AM PST by jacknhoo
Appeals Court Rejects Michigan Man's Abortion-Child Support Case Email this article Printer friendly page
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor November 6, 2007
Lansing, MI (LifeNews.com) -- A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court's decision making a Michigan man pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's baby. Matthew Dubay, a 26 year-old computer programmer, says men should have the same rights as women do under Roe v. Wade to exempt themselves from responsibilities for a child they don't want. The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its decision on Tuesday and sided with U.S. District Judge David Lawson, who rejected the lawsuit as frivolous.
The appeals court gave Dubay a limited victory by also rejected the state's bid to have him pay the cost of attorneys fees for their work in the appeal. Judge Lawson had ordered Dubay to pay the fees.
Dubay says that if women have the right to have an abortion and end their responsibility for an unborn child, men should have the same right.
He says his former girlfriend, Lauren Wells, did not want have children and told him during their relationship that she couldn't get pregnant.
Dubay attorney Jeffery Cojocar previously said he would take the case to the Supreme Court if the appeals court sided with the lower court's decision.
Lawson disagreed with Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity laws violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law is unconstitutional because it requires fathers to pay child support "even if he did not want the child to be born."
"The fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the state played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child," Lawson wrote.
"I heard that the way the judge dismissed the case was sarcastic," Dubay said at the time in response to the decision. "I'm disappointed in the system for not taking it seriously."
"I feel it's a fair argument and I'd like to see it argued in court. I'm disappointed we didn't get that opportunity," he added.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox eventually intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal.
State courts have previously ruled that any inequity men face is outweighed by the need to provide adequate support for children as they grow up. However, the New York-based National Center for Men is siding with Dubay and is calling the case "the Roe vs. Wade for Men."
Wells currently lives in Saginaw Township and is raising the couple's 2-year-old daughter, Elisabeth. Dubay was ordered to pay $500 per month for the child's welfare.
“The fundamental flaw in Dubay’s claim is that he fails to see that the state played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child,” Lawson wrote.
—Wait a minute!!! So the state DOES play a role when the WOMAN’s behavior results in conception or birth of a child??? I’m confused here...
If this is true, then abortion laws are unconstitutional. I guess they can't see the hypocrisy in their stupid statements.
And I'll give the men the same response I give the women:
"You don't want the responsibility? Don't do the act in the first place!"
What is his agenda?
Oh yes, and old old fashioned value that cuts through all their legal wrangling and demands for state justice and protection.
""The fundamental flaw in Roe v. Wade Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the State played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child, ergo the court can only conclude that the State has no jurisdiction here."
Looks like they may have handed us some ammunition.
“He says his former girlfriend, Lauren Wells, did not want have children and told him during their relationship that she couldn’t get pregnant.”
If she told him that, and he can find another old boyfriend to whom she said the same thing, I’d think he could sue her! Doesn’t help the poor child though!
Two wrongs makes a right?
Whenever a judge rules something like this it is a blatant indicator that they are ignoring the Constitution because they don't like the effects that following the Constitution would have.
Of course Roe v Wade is an example of that itself, which is why judges have to keep violating the Constitution to support it.
Our family courts are horribly, unconstitutionally biased against men, and the reasoning is always that is is in the best interest of the children. The constitution doesn't give the government the authority to ignore it whenever they feel it is best to grant one party something by taking it away from someone.
Equal protection, means equal protection.
It is in the best interest of a child to have two loving parents that share in their upbringing. When that isn't possible, the only preference the courts should show is for women that are breast feeding babies, and joint custody should really be joint custody like it is in Canada, not some system where the mother gets primary custody, and both parents have to share in the expenses as a percentage of their incomes.
Moral Absolutes?
Leftists never “see the hypocrisy” unless it is a conservative who fails to live up to a standard of behavior.
The biggest mistake we conservatives make when attempting to reason with leftists is... well, attempting to reason with leftists.
Their thought patterns are backwards - they start with the desired result and work backwards to the issue in question, and then make their position statement. This is outcome oriented thinking.
Conservatives, on the other hand, start with the stated reason behind a position, like in this case “someone’s right to choose abortion”, and apply it logically to the whole issue. This is process oriented, logical thinking.
Logic doesn’t apply to outcome oriented thinking. The woman, being a victim of biology, must have complete say over the birth of the child, and the man must just comply with this choice, whether he would have chosen differently or not.
“Looks like they may have handed us some ammunition.”
Doesn’t it, though! :)
A pregnant woman may choose whether to have an abortion and if she bears the child she may leave the child at a “newborn drop-off site” and walk away from any responsibility forever.
A man has no legal right to object to or require an abortion of a child he has fathered and even if he never knew the mother got pregnant he can be hunted down in perpetuity and forced to pay child support.
Thus women are assigned 100% authority and 0% responsibility while for the man the reverse is true.
“Reproductive Rights” is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no “reproductive rights” that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman’s “choice”.
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital “reproductive rights “ were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable “reproductive right” exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man’s income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don’t even have any “reproductive rights” in marriage, because his wife retains her “reproductive rights” if she “chooses” to exercise them.
I don’t think either sex should have these “reproductive rights”, and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn’t qualify for “reproductive rights” since she probably thinks men aren’t human anyway.
My point is that men have no “reproductive right” that is INDEPENDENT of a woman’s choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man’s wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man’s wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can “choose” to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort.
The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman “chooses” to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it’s course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a “reproductive right” is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman’s “choice” in either direction, rather than act as though this isn’t a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion. Consider paternal veto for unmarried men or presumptive divorce grounds for a married man whose wife “chooses” against his wishes.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.