Editing Roe v. Wade (section)

=== ''Dubay v. Wells'' ===
[[File:David M. Lawson.JPG|thumb|upright=0.65|Judge David Lawson]]

''[[Dubay v. Wells]]'' was a 2006 paternity case where a man argued he should not have to pay [[Child support in the United States|child support]] for a child he did not want to parent. The case was billed as "''Roe v. Wade'' for men".<ref>[http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/ The National Center For Men], p.[http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml 7] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180502152025/http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml |date=2018-05-02 }}.</ref>

On March 9, 2006, Dubay filed a lawsuit before the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan]]. [[Michigan Attorney General|Michigan's Attorney General]], Joel D. McGormley, made a [[Motion (legal)|motion to have the case dismissed]]. On July 17, 2006, District Court Judge [[David M. Lawson|David Lawson]] agreed and dismissed Dubay's lawsuit.<ref>[https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/06-11016.pdf ''Dubay v. Wells''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527132809/http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Opinions/lawsonpdf/06-11016.pdf |date=2010-05-27 }} 442 F.Supp.2d 404 (E. D. Mich., 2006)</ref> He appealed it once, to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]], which also dismissed it, and stated:
<blockquote>Dubay's claim that a man's right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman's right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0442p-06.pdf|title=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, case No. 06-11016}}</ref></blockquote>