Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy

Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy.


Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 6:52 a.m. EST (11:52 GMT)




NEW YORK (AP) -- 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, Michigan.

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.

'This is so politically incorrect'
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."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I think that's prefectly reasonable, particularly if the couple is not married.

LOL, only in lovely America

Sorry I just think some of these cases are hillarious, and some of them just makes me plain angry at the things .

I can't say that I the way things are is any more fair than if the man had total control.

A woman can never tell a man she is pregnant but then when she has a baby he has to pay support even if he never wanted a child. I tend to agree with him having to pay because its for the child, but it still sucks that he had no say.

At the same time she could get an abortion even if he wanted the child without even telling him. I can't say that I would push too hard for a woman to go through her pregnancy if she didn't want the baby and I did, but it should be something that is at least talked about.

It will never be totally fair since only women can carry the child.

Kefer is right it will never be equal because women have to carry the child.
Also of note I think Pennsylvania recently passed a law that even if you donated sperm you could be liable for financial responsibility, this is recent and I think is being fought by many different parties. However that is a very messed up idea because it was all the woman who wanted the child and went out and got it and now the guy who wanted to help others have children, or make a little extra money, has to pay for this kid for 18 years.

Man, this sucks. A man who donates sperm that is used by a woman he's never met to conceive a child can be FORCED to pay child support ?
This makes me sad and ANGRY !!!!!

Seriously, why aren't more MEN fighting the ANTI-MALE BIAS in the Justice system ? Why do American men bury their heads in the sand ? I'm from Haiti and if the Haitian government was this much biased against men, we'd burn down the Haitian version of the white house and elect a pro-male president the next day. We've done it before. Do American men lack spines ?

Samuelx said:

Seriously, why aren't more MEN fighting the ANTI-MALE BIAS in the Justice system ? Why do American men bury their heads in the sand ? I'm from Haiti and if the Haitian government was this much biased against men, we'd burn down the Haitian version of the white house and elect a pro-male president the next day. We've done it before. Do American men lack spines ?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Or they're just lazy. That's mostly my thing. It'd be fun to burn down the White House and everything, but I just don't want to spend the time and energy to do it.

Anyway, I think the closest men could get to reproductive equality right now, is some kind of Pill for men. I really don't know how that might work. I've heard it's being researched, but of course there's very little support (money) for it. Best guess is ten years from now, at least.

Samuelx said:

Man, this sucks. A man who donates sperm that is used by a woman he's never met to conceive a child can be FORCED to pay child support ?
This makes me sad and ANGRY !!!!!

Click to expand...

Isn't it supposed to be anonymous?

Raimondin said:

Isn't it supposed to be anonymous?

Click to expand...

Yes, but thanks to some funky laws, the anonymity, is beginning to crackle, even in Denmark :S

Well the sad thing with the United States and maybe other places too is the fact that there is alot of Anti-male teaching and philosophy going around. The feminist movement has gone too far as well at the stupid PC b.s. Male children are starting to preform far worse in school at all levels because of it and there is no change in sight.

They had this story recently in the UK about a mother who wanted to concieve using an embryo she had frozen with her partner before they split up. The European court decided that because they had split, the father had a right to say no to becoming a father:

Woman loses frozen embryos fight



Ms Evans' reaction
A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Natallie Evans started IVF treatment with her then partner Howard Johnston in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.

Ms Evans went to the Strasbourg court after exhausting the UK legal process.

She now hopes to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, but still wants her ex-fiancé to change his mind.

The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family

Howard Johnston


Head-to-head
Q&A: Embryos case

Ms Evans said: "I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own."

She added: "Howard may feel it's too late for him to change his mind, but it's not."

But Mr Johnston said: "It seems that common sense has prevailed.

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."

READ THE FULL JUDGEMENT
European Court of Human Rights judgement in the Natallie Evans case (195k)
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download the reader here

But he added: "I'm not thinking about this in terms of a victory."

Ms Evans' legal team had asked the judges to consider whether the UK law, under which the six stored embryos would be destroyed in October this year, was in breach of her human rights.

Right-to-life

A panel of seven judges made the ruling, which read: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child."

I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own

Natallie Evans


'I'm determined to have baby'

But it was ruled, in a majority verdict that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life - enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent.

It also ruled unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life.

Cancer diagnosis

The UK's Court of Appeal and High Court had both ruled that Ms Evans, who is in her early 30s, could not use the embryos and she failed in her bid to take the case to the House of Lords.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Consent cannot and should not be overridden

Patricia, London, UK


Send us your comments
Ms Evans, from Wiltshire, underwent IVF treatment following a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in which the embryos were created and placed in storage.

She has argued that Mr Johnston, from Gloucester, had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind.

Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allow either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.

A Department of Health spokeswoman welcomed the European Court judgment.

She said the department recognised the distress caused to Ms Evans during the legal process, and added a review of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which included the issue of the storage of embryos, was currently underway.

'Ticking clock'

Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said of the court's ruling: "It's an inevitable judgement, but a very sad one."

She said Mr Johnston had "become a father" when the embryos were created, and should have compassion for Ms Evans.

But Michael Wilks, of the BMA ethics committee, said: "It's the right verdict, but a terrible situation."

However Dr Wilks called for a change to the five year limit for embryos to be stored after one partner withdraws consent should be extended so there was less of a "ticking clock".

I guess the difference here is that the woman is not actually pregnant yet but its still a significant ruling I felt.

I think if you have consensual sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, you should have to take responsibility for the child because all your doing is making the child suffer if you don't. The men in this case are upset because they don't get a choice in whether the child is brought to term or not but that's just biology and nature, it's not the government being anti-male.

However, if you donate sperm, you shouldn't have to pay child support or anything.

DarkAurora said:

However, if you donate sperm, you shouldn't have to pay child support or anything.

Click to expand...

So remember, to all guys (me included) if you want to jerk off, then don´t do it in a spermbank, since it could ruin your economical life 18 + years, even though you didn´t have any sexual relationship with that woman

Harrowborg said:

They had this story recently in the UK about a mother who wanted to concieve using an embryo she had frozen with her partner before they split up. The European court decided that because they had split, the father had a right to say no to becoming a father:

Woman loses frozen embryos fight



Ms Evans' reaction
A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Natallie Evans started IVF treatment with her then partner Howard Johnston in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.

Ms Evans went to the Strasbourg court after exhausting the UK legal process.

She now hopes to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, but still wants her ex-fiancé to change his mind.

The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family

Howard Johnston


Head-to-head
Q&A: Embryos case

Ms Evans said: "I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own."

She added: "Howard may feel it's too late for him to change his mind, but it's not."

But Mr Johnston said: "It seems that common sense has prevailed.

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."

READ THE FULL JUDGEMENT
European Court of Human Rights judgement in the Natallie Evans case (195k)
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download the reader here

But he added: "I'm not thinking about this in terms of a victory."

Ms Evans' legal team had asked the judges to consider whether the UK law, under which the six stored embryos would be destroyed in October this year, was in breach of her human rights.

Right-to-life

A panel of seven judges made the ruling, which read: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child."

I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own

Natallie Evans


'I'm determined to have baby'

But it was ruled, in a majority verdict that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life - enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent.

It also ruled unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life.

Cancer diagnosis

The UK's Court of Appeal and High Court had both ruled that Ms Evans, who is in her early 30s, could not use the embryos and she failed in her bid to take the case to the House of Lords.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Consent cannot and should not be overridden

Patricia, London, UK


Send us your comments
Ms Evans, from Wiltshire, underwent IVF treatment following a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in which the embryos were created and placed in storage.

She has argued that Mr Johnston, from Gloucester, had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind.

Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allow either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.

A Department of Health spokeswoman welcomed the European Court judgment.

She said the department recognised the distress caused to Ms Evans during the legal process, and added a review of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which included the issue of the storage of embryos, was currently underway.

'Ticking clock'

Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said of the court's ruling: "It's an inevitable judgement, but a very sad one."

She said Mr Johnston had "become a father" when the embryos were created, and should have compassion for Ms Evans.

But Michael Wilks, of the BMA ethics committee, said: "It's the right verdict, but a terrible situation."

However Dr Wilks called for a change to the five year limit for embryos to be stored after one partner withdraws consent should be extended so there was less of a "ticking clock".

I guess the difference here is that the woman is not actually pregnant yet but its still a significant ruling I felt.

Click to expand...

Good to know that she couldn't go on with her scheme. It's just a ploy to
trap him, if you ask me.

In the case of the woman who cant get pregnant due to ruined eggs I think the courts could have come up with something like if he isnt fiscally responsible for the child. I don't think she was trying to trap him she just wants to have kids and that is the only way for it to be HER own genetic child.

my take on this roe vs. wade for men, is that i think with the right limitations it is very fair and a nice change of pace. if they were single and the woman left the man while she was pregnant.. then the man never got to see the child or even have a chance to be part of the babies life, then he should be able to denounce his ties to the child.


it takes two to make a baby, however, if one removes the other from the situation, is it really fair to expect financial support. why should a man pay for a child that was a surprise and that he has never had a chance to be around, because his girlfriend left while pregnant. if there is an effort on both sides to be there for the baby then support is definietly in order. there are so many little lines that need to be drawn for a case like this to actually be fair. i don't see it going through to be honest. there are too many variables and there are a lot of deadbeats out there. but on the flipside there are quite a few good men who have been given the bad end of the deal.

overall child support is a great idea, the children involved in almost every case deserve the extra support. in some cases it's just not fair.

I am of course in complete agreement. I hate seeing good men get the bad end of the deal.

blue eyed muse:

I have a tale a person once told me, and that was long time ago he and a woman made love only once, and 12 years later, she found him again. And told him she wanted a DNA test. And well now he has to pay child support for two children. where he only had seen one of the two children very sporadically back then.

And the only thing he is bitter over is that, he didn´t know it before long after the child was born.

Wolfman1982 said:

blue eyed muse:

I have a tale a person once told me, and that was long time ago he and a woman made love only once, and 12 years later, she found him again. And told him she wanted a DNA test. And well now he has to pay child support for two children. where he only had seen one of the two children very sporadically back then.

And the only thing he is bitter over is that, he didn´t know it before long after the child was born.

Click to expand...

i appreciate the story, but if he didn't want to pay child support and claim the kids then he shouldn't be forced to. i think he is a great man for wanting to, i just don't think it should be mandatory.

The National Center for Men could have picked a better poster child for their father's rights cause than Matt Dubay. What about the men who want to play an active role in their kids' lives, the ones who pay child support but don't get to see their kids? The ones who are trying to be responsible? The fact that they've chosen to champion the cause of someone like Dubay is a slap in the face to every father who's been shut out of his child's life by the child's mother.

Sounds to me like the National Center for Men is run by male versions of the kooks at NOW. The bra-burning man-haters don't come close to representing all of the women who consider themselves feminists; I'd like to think that there are reasonable people involved with the so-called Men's Rights Movement as well.

There are women out there who trick/trap men into getting them pregnant, and that's a truly dispicable thing to do. However, I don't think Dubay's case is one of those. He claims that he told this woman that he didn't want to have a child with her--before she got pregnant, if I recall. If he felt that strongly about not becoming a parent, then what was he doing to make sure that she didn't get pregnant? Both men and women are responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Unfortunately, the child's the one who loses out.

Eilan said:

The National Center for Men could have picked a better poster child for their father's rights cause than Matt Dubay. What about the men who want to play an active role in their kids' lives, the ones who pay child support but don't get to see their kids? The ones who are trying to be responsible? The fact that they've chosen to champion the cause of someone like Dubay is a slap in the face to every father who's been shut out of his child's life by the child's mother.

Sounds to me like the National Center for Men is run by male versions of the kooks at NOW. The bra-burning man-haters don't come close to representing all of the women who consider themselves feminists; I'd like to think that there are reasonable people involved with the so-called Men's Rights Movement as well.

There are women out there who trick/trap men into getting them pregnant, and that's a truly dispicable thing to do. However, I don't think Dubay's case is one of those. He claims that he told this woman that he didn't want to have a child with her--before she got pregnant, if I recall. If he felt that strongly about not becoming a parent, then what was he doing to make sure that she didn't get pregnant? Both men and women are responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Unfortunately, the child's the one who loses out.

Click to expand...

i definetly agree with you that dubay is a bad poster child for this. he looks like an asshole because they obviously didn't use protection and he has access to his child if he wants it. there are also other causes that could be taken up like the ones you mentioned. maybe with all the publicity over this, more issues willl be brought up.

It's always good when Men's Issues get publicity. I'm just a messenger. I hope men do get a say in unplanned pregnancies since it's their financial and emotional well-being on the line as well. It shouldn't be a one-sided issue, no matter what those misandrist judges and politicians tell you.

Your bias is palpable. In my opinion, it takes two to tango. If a guy's finances and emotional well-being are on the line, he is entitled to some choices. You don't have to like it.