- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The statute, which can lead to reproductive coercion in a state that has banned abortion, has recently gained nationwide attention
At six months pregnant, H decided enough was enough. She had endured years of abuse from her husband and had recently discovered he was also physically violent towards her child. She contacted an attorney to help her get a divorce.
But she was stopped short. Her lawyer told her that she could not finalize a divorce in Missouri because she was pregnant. “I just absolutely felt defeated,” she said. H returned to the house she shared with her abuser, sleeping in her child’s room on the floor and continuing to face violence. On the night before she gave birth, she slept in the most secure room in the house: on the tile floor in the basement, with the family’s dogs.
Under a Missouri statute that has recently gained nationwide attention, every petitioner for divorce is required to disclose their pregnancy status. In practice, experts say, those who are pregnant are barred from legally dissolving their marriage. “The application [of the law] is an outright ban,” said Danielle Drake, attorney at Parks & Drake. When Drake learned her then husband was having an affair, her own divorce stalled because she was pregnant. Two other states have similar laws: Texas and Arkansas.
You must log in or register to comment.
The “we just want to stop wh*res to use abortion as birth control” crowd does not stop at just abortion…
The article makes it clear that the intent of the legislation was more positive, albeit fraught, than many seem to think from the text here alone. However, it is clear to most that it is misapplied in many cases. It also goes on that there is recently introduced, currently pending legislation to improve the situation. Let’s hope it succeeds.
Why the hell is America such a backwater shithole? Like the education system in my country is deeply flawed, but at least we don’t have religious zealots.
Perpetuating the cycle of poorly educated religious zealots from a shithole backwater
It’s because the majority of the people, which are people who do not like this stuff, are also complacent as fuck and will tolerate just about anything if it means they don’t actually have to get off the fucking couch.
We’ve transitioned from ‘off the couch’ to 'grinding every waking moment to survive and are too tired to care about getting involved in local politics after you just got off shift at your second job ’
at least we have strong free speech laws and quite a few states have good self-defense laws. some good, some great, but there’s a handful of states that are terrible about any kind of self defense that involves killing a home invader
In quite a few places, you can’t use force to remove a trespasser if they decide to camp on your land.
Imagine being so delusional, you think those are unique or even worse… Needing those. You fantasise about murdering someone, how about Living in a place where that’s not even a consideration? I don’t have to worry about someone invading my home and having to defend myself. 3rd world countries are safer than your sorry excuse of a nation.
Imagine that - if someone camps on your land, you can just call the police. They will guide the trespasser out and initiate proceedings.
And yet, many (if not most) women who defend themselves from their abuser with a firearm get convicted on murder charges… mostly in the states you mention as having “good self-defense laws”.
Well, who needs bodily autonomy when you can just use slurs without repercussion. I really don’t get why you try to reason with free speech or self defense laws against against this intrusion of your actual freedom.
Being forced to keep a pregnancy going and then being forced to stay in marriage won’t get better when you can legally say whatever you want or shoot someone trespassing on your land…Every state allows lethal force to protect yourself within your home. It’s a GOP talking point lie that states don’t allow you to defend yourself.
And that’s something else that makes a lot of the world look at America like a backwater shithole. Feeling the need to be able to kill other people - that might be important to many Americans but from the outside looking in it seems ignorant and barbaric.
I adore a lot of individual Americans. Some of the best people I know have lived their entire lives in the USA. But for the last 20 or so years official US policy decisions have become harder and harder to agree with and this is an example of that. So many US citizens are better than their system - they really need to demand a change to politicians/justice systems/etc that better represent them.
Our nation is infested with conservatism. If history is our guide, the cure for this disease is not peaceful.
Conservatives believe women are property. Property does not get to make decisions. Only property owners may make decisions.
There is no “good conservative” alive today.
I’m embarrassed for my state.
This Christofascist shit is getting out of control. On what planet is a woman staying with her abuser a good thing? What do you think is going to happen to her child if she stays?
If a pregnant woman is wanting a divorce, you can be certain of two things: 1) there’s a reason for it, and 2) that reason is none of your fucking business. The party of small government, ladies and gentlemen.
What do you think is going to happen to her child if she stays?
The kid is going to become a neglected ignorant bigoted right-winger. Mission accomplished.
On what planet is a woman staying with her abuser a good thing?
the same one where a rape victim is forced to give birth to that rapists child.
And, if these Nat-Cs get their way, the biblical rule that a rapist must marry his victim will probably become actual law.
A government that’s just small enough to fit through your front door and rule your personal life.
Most conservatives around the world claim that they want to be small government, but really what they want is to control everything everybody does and if it all possible thinks. They literally are the opposite of conservatism.
Limited government for me, my buddies, and my investments.
…but lots of laws are unfortunately necessary to protect the core of American values (i.e., me, my buddies, & investments) from all the undesirables out there!
/s
Maybe you should consider whether conservativism has ever meant what they said it meant, considering its historical positions of defending theocracies, monarchism, slavery, and fascism.
it’s been out of control for 40 years since thatcher and reagan. that was its origin and those are the mistakes that need fixing - shitting on education and health care, shitting on mental health, shitting on doing anything the right way because it’s not “the american way”. honestly fuck america.
“Small government” has been redefined by conservatives. When a democrat says small government, they mean they don’t want regulation in every part of their personal life.
When a conservative says they want small government, they mean they want a government big enough to oppress minorities, but too small to ensure those minorities have their rights respected.
That mentality is also largely why conservatives get so up in arms about the norm being shifted, and new things getting normalized. Because the conservative mindset is entirely focused on conforming to the norm, and excluding those outside of the norm. So if the norm changes, they believe they need to change to fit the new norm or they’ll suddenly find themselves excluded.
It’s why they get so upset about minor shit like blue hair or piercings; As they begin to see it normalized, they begin to think “will I be forced to get piercings or dye my hair just to conform?” They explicitly support changes to the norm that already confirm their worldview and habits, because that further entrenches them as the protected norm. But they rabidly oppose the normalization of anything that doesn’t fit.
So if you’re a white married hetero couple with two kids, that’s what you’ll support. No divorces allowed, because we’re married and can’t normalize divorce. No blue hair allowed, because we’re Wonder Bread white and have never dyed our hair, and therefore can’t allow anything but natural hair colors. No abortions allowed, because childfree couples are a threat to our norm. No gay marriage, because we’re hetero and can’t shift the norm away from that. No drug decriminalizing, because the occasional bottle of wine has always been enough for us and we can’t normalize anything else. Et cetera, et cetera…
America is in its death throes. Republicans and Christians are choking her and the rest of us are just standing around wondering if anyone is going to step in and help.
The judicial branch was bought, the executive branch probably in on it and/or out of touch, the legislature branch is half circus half Corp sponsored… ya we have a 3 way and not that fun holiday vacation consensual kind…
Missouri is crazy. Its the absolute cheapest state to live in that has legal weed. At one point they were going to build a supersonic train from Saint Louis to Kansas City (and maybe they still are?) Sounds like a liberal paradise right? Wrong, they still occasionally make the news for doing the same kind of shit Texas or Russia would do. So are they liberals or fascists? Schrodingers box of political alignment.
deleted by creator
America has some serious vindictive fucks running the country
removed by mod
I can’t imagine how mean our government/culture must look to people who live in reasonable developed societies elsewhere. It looks insane from inside the country, and we’re the ones used to it and often related to the vindictive fucks’ voters!
To think divorce during pregnancy is allowed here, but not in the US. Maybe people in the US shouldn’t fear Shariah law if they are adopting even more regressive laws.
The only reason she can’t leave in this situation is because divorce would grant her an equal share of assets earned during the marriage thus allowing her to afford shelter and food for her and the kid. Under Islamic law the wife is not entitled to this so would be in an even worse situation.
Of course your country may have secular laws that do entitle fair division and protections, but that’s not the question.
I was under the impression the reason she couldn’t leave was because she was pregnant. I’ll reread the article, but I didn’t notice it being because she was entitled to half the property they acquired as a couple.
You think that she’s a prisoner and can’t leave physically because she’s pregnant? I know america is wild but married women still have autonomy, the only reason she’d need to stay is economic.
Ahh yes, the wealthiest country on Earth and if you’re pregnant, it would not be economical to not be beaten by a POS human that beats you and your child.
Seriously though, had she left and crossed state lines, she could have lost both her kids.
The ex wife is entitled to an allowance from her ex husband as are the children, she is also entitled to keep the gift her husband gave her to marry her. The state provides welfare too from monthly allowance to other services. She is not going to be homeless or sick without care if she ends poorer after the divorce.
Of course not all Muslim countries interpret Sharia exactly the same. I’m from Saudi Arabia which is on the more conservative side but has strong welfare. There are conditions on which the ex wife is not entitled to an allowance such as if she initiated the divorce. The courts can force the husband to divorce her but at the cost of waiving her financial benefits.
I think most people in the US still don’t get that many countries offer things like housing, healthcare and education as a right. A woman doesn’t need to be married to be financially secure here.
You’re painting a pretty picture but the reality of life for women in this situation in your country is not something American woman would accept, maybe you’re the one not aware how it is in the rest of the world.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/08/saudi-arabia-law-enshrines-male-guardianship
I’m not from the US and I’m not a huge fan of their legal system but reality is reality.
This is a country that literally only started requiring the brides consent in marriage less than twenty years ago. Where women need to use the absher app on their phone which notifies and requests permission from their male guardian if they try to use their passport to travel. Let’s not try and pretend a woman in the same situation as in the ops article would be better off in SA - especially as you yourself sat if she was in the same situation she would not be eligible as the initiator.
I think you should no more about Saudi Arabia. I think you are assuming that Saudi Arabia by default will be worse, but I see the differences as a matter of tradeoffs. When it comes to financial and material conditions the average woman in Saudi Arabia is better off than the average woman in the US. You could argue for other social or personal issues, but not when it comes to money.
is not something American woman would accept
She would definitely accept the free healthcare and more accessible abortions if she ever needed it 1 2 3
Where women need to use the absher app on their phone which notifies and requests permission from their male guardian if they try to use their passport to travel
Are you sure about this? from what I know the current law states any women 21 or above doesn’t need a permission from any male guardian. I know it was the case for my sister and female cousins. Either you or HRW are citing an old law.
if she was in the same situation she would not be eligible as the initiator.
She won’t be eligible for an allowance from her husband, but she may still be eligible for a welfare allowance from the government. My sister initiated the divorce with her husband, and took him to court to force him to divorce her, and she is doing just fine financially, it helped that she was making more than him, but if she was poor she would qualify for housing and allowance from the government. Her son has a monthly allowance from the government in addition to the allowance paid by his father.
Y’all are so reactionary it’s pitiful. Arizona, Arkansas, California and Texas also have this law. In Michigan the judge makes the call.
Nothing is stopping a woman from leaving or beginning divorce proceedings. All these laws mean is that they cannot finalize a divorce while pregnant. And that makes sense because:
- Especially when a couple is divorcing, they may have other intimate partners. A pregnancy at this time might have unclear paternity, and the court may require a DNA test of the baby after it’s born.
- The court may not believe it’s urgent to order a newborn visitation schedule before there’s a baby to visit. In the meantime, one parent could move a long distance, and then they’d need a different visitation arrangement.
- If the baby is born to a newly divorced parent, the parent is likelier to qualify for public assistance. The state wants the baby to be born to married parents to make it easier to hold them both financially accountable for the child.
- The court wants to avoid ordering child support before there’s a child to support. If parents lose or gain jobs, the support amount will have to be recalculated.
- The court needs to know if the baby is born with an illness, disability or other condition that requires extra parental attention or generates high doctor bills.
- You could be surprised with twins.
- If there’s a concern about your fitness to parent, the judge may appoint a custody evaluator or social worker to observe you with the child.
- A home visit by a social worker can verify that the child exists and lives in the state.
- Generally, courts don’t have authority to make orders affecting unborn babies. Once a baby is born, it’s legally a person and a state resident.
https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/divorce/divorce-while-pregnant.php
None of those reasons are valid. Not one.
^ There go one now, reacting to the headline, refusing information that goes against the zeitgeist around here. So your argument amounts to, “Nuh UH!”?
And what’s your argument against the law? It does nothing to stop a woman from getting away from her husband. The only thing it stops is finalizing the divorce before the above questions are answered.
If you were the woman, wouldn’t you rather wait to sign on the dotted line so there’s no risk of relitigating anything listed above? As a single mother, you’re likely in a bad spot. Want to go back to court, over and over? Or even once? It’s painful. I know.
Pick one argument you made that you think is the best, and I’ll show you why it’s erroneous.
And no, I wouldn’t want to wait. I’ve been the woman in this scenario. I was three months pregnant when my husband physically attacked me. You need a swift legal end. It’s easy to write a divorce agreement that deals with situations that don’t yet exist. Most every single one deals with at least a few. (When the house sells, at retirement age, when taxes are due, etc.) Why not when a baby is born?
Until that line is signed by a judge, men like my husband continue to drag you back because they think they own you under the law.
Your arguments sound great to anyone who hasn’t actually been in that situation. But every one of them can be addressed without forcing a woman to stay married to her abuser.
It’s not rape if you’re married.
Gotta stay married if you’re pregnant.
Some states have codified: pregnant, bare foot and chained to the stoves
'Merica!
deleted by creator
Blessed be the fruit.
Yeah okay, this is fucked up.
… Or Fargo season 5 prologue
- Move to Missouri
- Marry a bunch of women and get them pregnant
- Tell them about each other
- Stream the fights on TokTik or something
- Profit
Yeah, lets abuse a bunch of women for profit, that’ll show those abusers! No, wait… 🤔
I’ve seen this one before, they all gang up on you together and hatch a plan for revenge and the whole thing turns into a comedy.
