Did Kim Gandy Just Call an Unborn Baby "A Child"?
The lawsuit, which apparently has been given the nickname, "Roe v. Wade for Men," concerns a 25-year-old computer programmer who no longer wants to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
Now, on it's face, this lawsuit seems at least a little silly. Basically, it sounds like guys trying to evade the consequences of fathering children that they are 50% responsible for conceiving. However, if one uses the the odd "logic" of Roe, in which a fetus is neither a child nor a responsibility, but rather the subject of a constitutionally protected choice of the mother, one can begin to see how this lawsuit has some merit under the current law.
What's interesting is the seemingly uneasy reaction to this case by NOW president Kim Gandy, who is quoted at the end of the article:
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."
Whoa! Did Gandy just call the result of an unintended pregnancy a child? I thought it was just a choice! Have NOW's members heard about this?