I have done a few posts about the lack of rights for men when it comes to "reproductive issues" --this is a glaring example of that phenomenon:
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Anthony L. Parker (who is not the father of the baby in question and has contended that since the baby's birth) will have to pay back due child support of $24 beginning June 20, 2002 despite a paternity test that verified his claim of not being the father.
"...The opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin, said state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support.
State law only speaks to a man's future child-support obligations once that person has been found through testing not to be a child's father. And Associate Justice Robert L. Brown said in a concurring opinion that the court was "legislating by inference."
Brown said the opinion reached "a grossly unfair result by saddling a person with a post-due support debt" when that person has not claimed to be the father and is proven not to be. He urged the state Legislature to clarify the law..." (source)
...But he never "acknowledged" he was the father -so does this mean that any woman can assign paternity to anyone she wishes and be entitled to support up until a court date that proves otherwise? Is this really just a "women's issue"?
Now, men that have children and don't pay -or compalin about paying...that's a whole other post.