Talk:Dubay v. Wells

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Adoption?

'Although the two discussed adoption, Wells ultimately decided to have the baby'

Surely that should say 'abortion', not 'adoption'? 81.149.205.130 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, they discussed putting it up for adoption 24.59.148.187 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Redirect

The standard format for referring to legal cases in the US is to have the case names separated by a v. rather than by a vs., and also to have the entire name in italics. For this reason, I redirected User:HalfDome's article from Roe vs. Wade for Men to Roe v. Wade for Men.

Problems with my redirect: The original article had nothing on the discussion page but it did have four items on the history page, all showing edits made by HalfDome. I hoped that the redirect was going to redirect these pages, but that didn't happen. Did I do something wrong? Is there a way to redirect the history page? Interlingua ^{talk email} 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone actually read Roe v. Wade?

The first line of this article should be changed to "Roe v. Wade for Men" is the name that Matt Dubay and the National Center for Men gave Dubay's child support case." First of all, Wikipedia policy is to avoid passive voice (used in the current version) as much as possible. Second, I've looked at the cites and the only original uses are by Dubay and/or his lawyer. Therefore, the sentence as it stands is POV.

Most importantly, it's not a name that most people who've actually read Roe v. Wade would agree with. The Roe court weighed the balance of rights between the fetus and the woman -- not the fetus and the man or the man and the woman. It wasn't about women being the sole makers of parenting decisions, it was about whether women were required to risk their physical health to carry a pregnancy to term.

In significant part, the holding in Roe was based on a comparison of the risk of an abortion at a particular point in pregnancy to the risk of childbirth. So in the first trimester, when the risk to women of having abortions was much less than the risks posed by childbirth, state restriction of abortion was not permitted. In the second trimester, the risk of abortion rises and, consequently, the state may impose some restrictions on abortions between 12 and 24 weeks gestation. In the third trimester, the risk of abortion (at least in 1972) was approximately the same as the risk posed by childbirth and, moreover, the chances of the fetus living outside the womb increased markedly. Therefore, states could impose a wide range of restrictions on abortions, almost up to the point of outlawing abortion after 24 weeks.

I propose that the following should be added to the article, since there's no real legal analysis: "By labelling Dubay's case "Roe v. Wade for Men," the National Center for Men made two points. First, they believe the right of a fetus to be born is outweighed by the right of the father of that fetus to keep $475 of his earnings every month. Second, they also believe that the right of a woman to avoid death in childbirth is only as fundamental as the right of a man to own a 1998 Trans Am."

You think thats objective? No one challenged the right of the baby to be born, only the mandatory child support. If you are refrencing health care, then hospitals cant turn away patients. And the TransAm is much too sarcastic. I cant believe you seriously proposed that. And did everyone read the last line? Different classes of people? Institutionalized sexism. Jim Crow for men. Whatever you want to call it, its wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.15.133 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think if Matt Dubay agrees to have a vasectomy instead of paying child support, the state of Michigan (not to mention the rest of the human race) has gotten off easy. But that's probably POV on my part. OhSusanne 09:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that you haven't read Roe v Wade by your comments. Let me cite the majority opinion for you.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. (1)Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. (2) Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. (3) Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. (4) There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it."

Those are the courts reasons for allowing abortion. That is why the court allows women to have choice to free themselves from the burdens of motherhood. While 1 does apply only to women, notice that 2, 3, and 4 applies to both men and women. And notice the focus on parenthood in the text, it wasn't just about being pregnant.. the decision is based upon the burdens that parenthood impresses on people.

So, yes, this is Roe v Wade for men. This is about men being free from the distressful life and future forced on him by parenthood, the taxing of his mental and physical health by child care, and the distress caused by an unwanted child. Or is it your contention that only women should have a right to be free from those burdens? DSArmageddon (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is about Rights not Mechanics

People on both sides seem to get hung up on the mechanics, and it shows in this article and the links it references. This may all be my POV, but this article is not NPOV either.

Whether a woman has the right to abort or not is not in question. It is whether men share the same rights, the popular position seems to be not. Beyond that things get murky quickly, NOW argues that this is a nefarious attempt to control women, and Mens rights groups argue that the current state is exploitive.

The Dubay case seems to be a poor test, but there are scenarios that I am sure would draw better consensus. If a man and woman agree to have sexual relations, and agree that they do not want children, and she agrees that in the event of a unintended pregnancy she will abort, why should a man not be allowed the same right? for the same time frame? To maintain the original agreement. While physically she can choose to continue the pregnancy, why should the man not have the option of "aborting" his rights and obligations. I do believe the key is there, for this to be gender equal a man who aborts responsibilities and obligations must be simultaneously aborting any rights in regard to the child.

This is not at all about whether the woman can keep the child or her rights in regard to it.

As the law current stands a woman can intentionally deceive a man, become pregnant as a result, and the man become obligated to care for the child for the subsequent 18 years.

In short this article needs no more POV from OhSusanne, or probably as likely myself. The article may however benefit from being more tightly scoped to the subject of rights and not actions. Evengrift 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article retitle

This article's former title, "Roe v. Wade for Men," is an informal name for this case. Its actual name is Dubay v. Wells, and, thus, I have changed the article's title to main consistency with the titling convention of other articles in Category:United States case law. -01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Case dismissed... okay, now what?

Okay, so the United States Court of Appeals decided to dismiss the case. Does this mean the case is over? If that is the case, then the beginning of the article should be changed from "Is a legal case" to "Was a legal case". Addressing the case in present tense implies that there is further action to be taken. I don't have a very intimate knowledge of court procedure, so perhaps someone who knows more about this sort of thing could shed some light on the situation? Scorpio3002 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Misleading"

From the sourced court decision: "The Fourteenth Amendment gives no succor to a disgruntled sexual partner who fails to reach accord over these important matters, nor even to one who is misled by the actions of a private party." (Emphasis mine.) The issue is not whether the woman intentionally misled the man, the issue is whether a misled man has the rights demanded by the plaintiff. Blackworm (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. The judges' summery is a train wreck of irrelevant BS that makes it clear they ignored what Dubay was saying. It's quite telling that the precedents cited in the article is a racist law. Unfortunately we can't call them on it unless some appropriate qualified points out the blindingly obvious for us. Pity. ANTIcarrot (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this feminist bitch is talking about, Roe v. Wade was about abortion to save the life of the mother. But what about the women the have an abortion because they're not ready to be a parent? Whats the difference between her and a so-called dead beat dad? I prey for the day they abolish abortion so some of these self-rightous women would shet the hell up. You have some women that have had atleast 2 or 3 abortions and think they have the right to call somebody a dead beat, ain't that a bitch?

:You should not make personal attack statements, however I do agree, Roe v. Wade WAS about abortion to save the life of the mother, but what people fail to understand beyond that superficial point is that by that ruling they ALSO gave women extra rights (i.e. abortion as convenience and free of finial obligation), in doing so they created an unequal system, in that women have the right to terminate financial obligation to a would-be child, and men do not, which would be, as I understand it, clearly against the 14th amendment. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Er, what? This takes far too many of the plaintiff's arguments at face value. It is they who claim that this is an issue of laws being applied unevenly - to write "The specific legal challenge in the case is based on whether Michigan's child support laws apply to men and women equally. If not, then it is argued that they violate Equal Protection" is begging the question. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, my reading is that that is a true, encyclopedic statement about what the legal challenge was and what the plaintiffs argued and which does not beg the question. Maybe you could further clarify your thinking, though. 71.240.252.226 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference concerns, BLP concerns, and proposed title change:

This article has been tagged since 2009, due to reference issues. When I stumbled upon it, the article was mostly referenced by articles from a Men’s Rights website, specifically the Men’s Rights group that sued on Dubay’s behalf, and from court documents. The Men’s Rights info could maybe be used as Men’s Rights opinion on this case, but only if supplemented by reliable neutral secondary sources. Court documents should not be used in accordance with WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. While it could be argued that Matt Dubay willingly became a public figure when he went public with his cause of “financial abortion for men” his ex-girlfriend and the child in question are not public figures. I removed the name of the ex-girlfriend and the initials of the child. I also suggest the article title be changed to something that does not include his ex-girlfriend’s last name due to BLP concerns. None of the reliable sources I could locate specifically named the lawsuit “Dubay v Wells”. While the court documents show his lawsuit was in fact named “Dubay v Wells”, the lawsuit was dismissed and was not named as “Dubay v Wells” in the reliable sources. In reliable secondary sources, this case was described as a child support dispute filed by Matt Dubay that was being dubbed by Men's Rights activists as “Roe v Wade for men” so I think the article name should be changed to “Matt Dubay child support case”, to avoid BLP concerns regarding identifying the ex-girlfriend by referring to lawsuit with her last name and the last name of the child in question, neither of whom are public figures and who are not named in reliable secondary sources found online.

Here are the reliable sources I was able to find still available online regarding this case:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11731580/ns/us_news-life/t/mens-activists-launch-roe-v-wade-men/#.U5PcOZRdXBc

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-08-fatherhood-suit_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4789090.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/03/14/right-cause-wrong-approach/

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has voiced any objections and the previous title appeared to constitute a BLP violation, title was changed to "Matt Dubay child support case". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This idea of removing the names of parties who are not public figures does not appear to be followed in the articles of any other legal case. This is my objection. --Jacob's Crackers (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because consensus is not reached on the issue, I will revert the edits and the move. I hope this is OK with everyone. --Jacob's Crackers (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Matt Dubay child support case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]