Child Support and Roe v. Wade
Monday / September 10, 2007
Should a man who has impregnated a woman have the
same right that she has to terminate the pregnancy?
Today, a case called Dubay v. Wells is being
argued in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit. A group called The National Center for Men is
backing Mr. Dubay's appeal, calling the case
"Roe v. Wade for Men." Apparently, the Center
thinks it's going to make some money from this
appeal because it has trademarked the phrase
"Roe v. Wade for Men."
What's the hooray all about? Mr. Dubay filed suit in a Michigan federal court. The court's opinion introduces the case thus:
According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.
Mr. Dubay brought suit under the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed that permitting a woman, but not a man, to terminate a pregnancy violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. But a section 1983 claim requires some action by the state. According to the court, Mr. Dubay
failed to demonstrate in even the most remote way that state action plays a role in the interference with his choice to reject parenthood. The consequences of sexual intercourse have always included conception, and the State has nothing to do with this historical truism.
The court dismissed the case. Mr. Dubay vowed to soldier on. He appealed the case. This time he has a lawyer, but it is doubtful an attorney will do him much good. The trial court found Mr. Dubay's suit frivolous to the point that it required him to pay the defendants' attorney's fees. The same thing might happen to Mr. Dubay's lawyer in the court of appeals.
What's the hooray all about? Mr. Dubay filed suit in a Michigan federal court. The court's opinion introduces the case thus:
According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.
Mr. Dubay brought suit under the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed that permitting a woman, but not a man, to terminate a pregnancy violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. But a section 1983 claim requires some action by the state. According to the court, Mr. Dubay
failed to demonstrate in even the most remote way that state action plays a role in the interference with his choice to reject parenthood. The consequences of sexual intercourse have always included conception, and the State has nothing to do with this historical truism.
The court dismissed the case. Mr. Dubay vowed to soldier on. He appealed the case. This time he has a lawyer, but it is doubtful an attorney will do him much good. The trial court found Mr. Dubay's suit frivolous to the point that it required him to pay the defendants' attorney's fees. The same thing might happen to Mr. Dubay's lawyer in the court of appeals.
|
