Two wrongs don't make a right. But, in contemplating compounding a wrong, the wrongness of that wrong finally may be appreciated and, as a result, that wrong may be revisited and rectified, in humility, instead of confirmed and compounded, out of foolish pride and for the sake of political correctness run rampant.

Hopefully, the federal lawsuit recently brought by The National Center For Men to help a man evade parental responsibility will expose the egregious error of the United States Supreme Court in making abortion a constitutional right.

The Center's press release heralding its ludicruous lawsuit explained and extolled it as follows:
"On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man's right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. TM

"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.

"We will ask a United States district court judge to apply the principles of reproductive choice, as articulated in Roe vs. Wade, to men. We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex. We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA: A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother.

"We will ask that women be required to share reproductive freedom with men.

"Our lawsuit will be filed on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, a computer technician from Saginaw, Michigan. The state of Michigan is seeking to force Matt to pay child support for a child he never intended to bring into the world. Matt insists that the child’s mother repeatedly assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, Matt says that she knew he did not want to have a child with her. Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were 'Mattilda.'

"Immediately upon the filing of Roe vs. Wade for Men, The National Center For Men will begin distribution of its Reproductive Rights Affidavit, intended to be filed in court by a man and designed to give men legal rights in matters of procreation. We think it will encourage men and women to make family planning decisions together, as equal partners, by giving a man a voice but without interfering with a woman’s right to choose. It reads, in part:

"I will not recognize the moral authority of a court to strip me of my constitutional right to reproductive choice. I will challenge any court order that seeks to impose a parental obligation upon me against my will by asserting my right to equal protection of the law.”

But for Roe v. Wade, there would not be a legal predicate for this lamentable lawsuit. But, the remedy for the United States Supreme Court imposing on mothers a need to choose to abort or not to abort by making abortion a constitutional right (and depriving the people of each state of their right to regulate abortion inside their state) is NOT to empower irresponsible fathers to escape their responsibility TO THEIR OWN PREBORN CHILDREN, in the name of gender equality, and thereby put even more pressure on mothers to abort.

Men putting pressure on women to abort is an ugly reality than ardent abortion advocates tend to ignore.
On January 17, 2006, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and The American Constitutional Society co-sponsored a debate on the Alito nomination, the Supreme Court and the abortion debate at the Cornell Club in midtown Manhattan. During the debate some in the audience actually hissed when the ardent pro-life advocate, Wendy E. Long, pointed out that women who have chosen abortion seem to have been pressured in some way (e.g., financially pressed, abandoned). If the Center has its way, there will be even more pressure and even more abortions. But if the Center's lawsuit exposes the Supreme Court's egregious constitutional error, it will have done what desperately needs to be done.

America suffers from a dreadful moral sickness traceable to the United States Supreme Court's gratuitous misruling in 1947 that the First and Fourteenth Amendments require government to be neutral as between religion and irreligion and not to support religion generally, even though America was founded on the basis of a belief in God and God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the First Amendment was intended to protect the free exercise of religion instead of to provide freedom from religion in the public square and to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion or disestablishing any religious denomination. It is not a coincidence that, having turned from God, in subsequent years the Supreme Court "discovered" constitutional rights to the private possession of obscene material, abortion and sodomy. Polygamists are railing that the Constitution protects polygamy too! And a constitutional amendment may be needed to stop the recognition of "same-sex relationships" as "marriages."

The vacuum created by the end of voluntary nondenominational prayer in public school was filled with a plethora of problems, including guns, knives, illicit drugs and sexual abuse. An atheist is working hard to force the deletion of the words "under God" from "The Pledge of Allegiance," and hoping to remove "In God We Trust" on America's currency and coins next.

The contemplation of those actions as flowing from the egregious error made by the United States Supreme Court in 1947 should lead the Court to reconsider and to rectify. The Court's secular extremists are rigid and need to be replaced before America is further disgraced.

Not long ago the Academy Award for best picture went to a movie approving euthanasia instead of to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." This year's nominees for best picture were all grievously flawed and the Academy Award for best song went to a song lamenting the 'hard life" of a pimp. Very sick!

So it should not come as a surprise that a man is making a gender discrimination argument to avoid financial responsibility for his own child and the Center is advocating a position that, if accepted, would put more pressure on a mother to abort her preborn child. [Note: If the man really was defrauded by the mother of his child, then his remedy is to sue her for damages for fraud; it is not to deny his pre-born child live birth and financial support.]

This lawsuit is truly sick. But, is it so sick that the fundamental flaw with abortion, which Roe v. Wade magically and tragically transformed from a criminalizable act into a constitutionally protected right, will be appreciated and acknowledged and abortion finally will join slave ownership and segregation as moral and legal wrongs and former constitutional rights?

Please pray that it will be so.