It is said it takes a village to raise a child. But when only one parent has the right to choose the fate of the child, that child immediately gets shortchanged.
A decoy case dubbed Roe v. Wade for Men will be presented by the National Center for Men as the new centerpiece of a men’s rights campaign. The lawsuit poses as an attempt to change the legalities that limit men’s rights in unwanted pregnancies.
NCM members argue that the “lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.” Women’s rights advocates see this as a ploy for deadbeat dads to get out of paying child support.
The courts have ruled in prior cases that men’s rights are “outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents,” which pretty much says it all: “Well, that’s too bad. That’s just the way things are.”
Of course, this case will go nowhere, but it will at least stir up debate.
You see, what both sides fail to see is that neither the man, nor the woman is the victim here.
The lawsuit is not intended to take away a woman’s right to choose, only create an alternative to an argument that too often results in, “well that’s too bad. That’s just the way things are.” And too often as a result of the way things are, the father goes MIA, the mother struggles and the child, the one person who really had no choice, is left without a village.
-Bryan Falla for the editorial board.