Appeals court: no reproductive choice for men
The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit today rejected the claim that a male has a constitutional "right to decide not to become a parent even after conception:"
State requirements, and federal encouragement, of child support from unwed fathers has a long historical tradition. It emanates necessarily from the biological relationship, a relationship that may have only marginal importance for the male in some cases like the one before us in which the father seeks to remove himself completely from the child.
[...]
As the plaintiff concedes, there are no judicial decisions recognizing a constitutional right of a man to terminate his duties of support under state law for a child that he has fathered, no matter how removed he may be emotionally from the child. Child support has long been a tax fathers have had to pay in Western civilization. For reasons of child welfare and social utility, if not for moral reasons, the biological relationship between a father and his offspring -- even if unwanted and unacknowledged -- remains constitutionally sufficient to support paternity tests and child support requirements.
[...]
Neither the laws of biological reproduction nor the Due Process Clause recognize the "fairness" arguments plaintiff raises. Reproduction and child support requirements occur without regard to the male's wishes or his emotional attachment to his offspring.
If you make a few gender-appropriate modifications in language, didn't the court just describe the law for women prior to Roe v. Wade? Why isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander?
My point here isn't that fathers should get away with not supporting their biological children, even when unwanted. My point is that for many for reasons -- including the courts' unwillingness to extend "choice" to men -- Roe was atrocious constitutional law.
(Thanks to How Appealing.)