[Source: Health and Life Sciences Law Daily, November 7, 2007]
The AP (11/7) reports that on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed 'Roe v. Wade for Men,'" which was filed on behalf of Matthew Dubay by the National Center for Men. Dubay "said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter," because she "knew he didn't want to have a child and assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition." Dubay "argued that 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." However, U.S. District Judge David Lawson "disagreed, rejecting Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it didn't extend reproductive rights to men."
