Conceding from the get-go
that his chances in court are slim and none, Matthew Dubay
yesterday filed a lawsuit that proponents have dubbed "Roe
v. Wade for Men."
"The gist of the argument,"
according to David Crary of the Associated Press, is
"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."
Mel Feit, director of The National
Center for Men, which filed the suit Thursday, told Crary
that his organization has been looking for a "suitable
plaintiff" since the early 1990s. Feit thinks he has his man
in Dubay, a computer programmer from Saginaw, Michigan.
According to the suit,
in the fall of 2004, Lauren Wells, Dubay's
then-girlfriend, told him she could not have children
because of a chronic physical condition and because she
was using contraception. "When the woman found
herself with child, she was unwilling to terminate the
pregnancy," wrote Judith Graham of the Chicago Tribune.
"
She gave birth to a baby girl and
then obtained a court order requiring Dubay to pay $500 a
month in child support." Dubay was also ordered by a Saginaw
County Circuit Court judge to pay half of his daughter's
health expenses.
"I do feel like
I was blindsided by this woman," Dubay told ABC12's
Jeff Piechowski. "She is now making me pay for a child when
she knew up front that I was not ready to be a parent at the
time."
Wells
responded, "He chose that risk and everybody knows where
babies come from."
Jeffery Cojocar, Dubay's attorney,
told the Tribune the case is the first to assert a
constitutional freedom to "choose not to be a father" under
the Constitution's equal protection clause. "Child support
isn't the only issue at stake," writes Graham. "Dubay
doesn't want any of the other legal or emotional
responsibilities that come with parenthood."
Feit told Crary, "There's such
a spectrum of choices that women have-- it's her body,
her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make
decisions." His said, "I'm trying to find a way for a
man also to have some say over decisions that affect his
life profoundly."
Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State
University law professor, said "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," according to
Crary's paraphrase.
"The courts," Jacobs told Crary,
"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."
But, according to Feit, there
aren't necessarily higher costs to society or the mother for
what was described as a "fatherhood opt-out."
"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."
Pro-abortion representatives
bristled at Feit for likening the suit to Roe v. Wade.
Feit was unapologetic.
"The problem is this is so
politically incorrect," he told Crary. "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."
The irony of the observation made
by Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for
Women, was hard to miss.
"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."
Please send your comments to Dave
Andrusko at dandrusko@nrlc.org.
