< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://fumare.us/" > < meta name="DC.identifier" content="http://fumare.blogspot.com" > <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12407651\x26blogName\x3dFUMARE\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d6298351012122011485', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Law, culture, and Catholicism...up in smoke!

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Ave Maria Law Review Predicts Roe v. Wade for Men

"Roe v. Wade for Men" -- that's what they're calling a new lawsuit that is set to be filed in district court in Michigan. As the news report states:

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.

Though the position of the plaintiff in the suit is abhorrent (i.e., a man having a "right" to slough off responsibility for his children), it may be a completely logical progression under the current Roe regime.

And, an article in the Ave Maria Law Review predicted it. Check out this article, from Volume II, Issue 1, entitled "Child Support Statutes and the Father's Right Not to Procreate." Written a couple of years ago by an Ave Maria graduate as a reductio ad absurdum argument, the Ave Maria Law Review article appears to be directly on point with the arguments that the plaintiff is attempting to put forward in the current suit.

Update: The complaint was filed this morning in the Eastern District of Michigan, and is before the Honorable David M. Lawson. It is Civil Case No. 06-11016, Dubay v. Wells.

Update II: Thanks to a commenter, you can now read the 8-page Complaint here. [PDF]