Given South Dakota's new abortion law, more men in South Dakota will be paying child support for unplanned pregnancies (ah, good old DNA tests...). Where abortion provides women a choice, it also provides men with the opportunity to end an obligation to support an unwanted or unplanned child.
Enter The National Center for Men and their "Roe v. Wade for Men."
The National Center for Men announced today that it would be filing a lawsuit in Michigan on behalf of a 25 year old computer programmer who is paying child support for the child he and his ex-girlfriend have together.
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.
At heart, the lawsuit addresses the issue of a woman's choice, and the man's responsibility in managing the consequences of her choice. If the man and woman choose to abort an unplanned pregnancy, then they are in agreement and there is no conflict. They they both choose to have the child together and share in parenting responsibilities, again--no conflict.
But when a woman chooses to abort but the man wants her to give birth, what rights does he have? Or, as this lawsuit highlights--what happens when an unplanned pregnancy leads to the woman's choice to give birth to a child the father does not want? Should he be compelled--as is current law--to provide support for said child through the child's 18th or even 21st birthday?
And in light of South Dakota's law, and the Mississippi bill banning abortion in that state, riddle me this: if the "Roe v. Wade for Men" lawsuit results in a court's agreement that the Equal Protection clause is violated, and men can opt out of child support for children they do not want, then where does this leave women in states where abortion is illegal?
Well...
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.
OK. So if men are given the choice to opt out of supporting the child, but women cannot choose abortion, can women then sue under the Equal Protection clause at some point, in the future, in states where abortion might be illegal?
That these two events--South Dakota's abortion ban, and the National Center for Men's "Roe v. Wade for Men" lawsuit--converge this week is fascinating.