Roe v. Wade for Men

Here's an interesting twist on reproductive rights - a man suing to be allowed the "right" to refuse child support (h/t James Taranto):

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.

Interesting, and I'm sure this will be in the courts for awhile. But even more interesting is this comment from Kim Gandy, president of the National Association of Gals:

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."

Taranto sums up the irony in that statement:

Then again, if the men's rights movement can induce the top guy at NOW to admit it's a "child" rather than a "clump of tissue," perhaps it has already done some good.

Indeed.