An Insane Missouri Law Prevents Pregnant Women From Getting Divorced—Even If They’re Victims of Domestic Violence

State representative Ashley Aune is trying to fight it, but doesn’t have high hopes.

Something you might have picked up on over the last several weeks/years/centuries is that there are a disturbing number of people in power who will go to great lengths to control women in America. Not convinced? Thinking of citing the fact that in some countries, women are stoned to death (as though that makes what happens here okay)? Then we’d like to make you aware of a law in Missouri that says pregnant women cannot get a divorce finalized if they’re pregnant—even if said pregnant people are victims of domestic violence.

TengoDosVacas,

Someone explain to me again how wanting to crush radical fascist talk radio saturation is bad because “free speech”.

If all other perspectives are suppressed for any reason including profitability you can STFU

nutsack, (edited )

marriage is a complicated mess of a contract that married people don’t usually understand. it’s not consistent across state lines and the number of absurd legal situations it can lead to is crazy

Formesse,

I swear, marriage would be easier dealt with if both parties opted to incorporate a business, and put their relevant assets in the name of the corporation. Then at least separation would be pretty clean cut and dry. The Irony is - this is basically what marriage is.

yetAnotherUser,

No, marriage has a few more important rights, ranging from being able to make certain important medical decisions for the other (e.g. life support related) to being able to refuse to testify against each other.

MJKee9,

This is common. In Tennessee, a judge won’t divorce you if pregnant because it would effectively bastardize the child. By statute, there is a presumption that husband is dad if wife is impregnated during marriage. You can’t divorce without a parenting plan. So you have to wait until birth to rebut the parentage presumption. I had a client try to get around it by requesting a test of the amniotic fluid, but the judge wouldn’t allow it because of the potential harm to the child.

ryathal,

It’s probably more about preventing the state from becoming liable to help the child than anything about bastards.

MJKee9,

“Bastardize” is a term of art, essentially meaning having no legal father at birth. The whole reason the state cares about preventing bastards is because they typically require more state services than non-bastardized children.

indomara,

Honestly, the rules and laws on divorce are so wild across the country. I was married in California but my husband left after 6 months. I hadn’t see him in 9 or 10 years, had no idea where he was.

Because I was in the state of Kentucky when I filed, I had to go to a church run “divorce education class” on how to save my marriage and complete a little workbook.

Completely insane class, I stayed in the back and tried to stay silent, but the teacher forced me to participate and asked some leading question about how I could communicate better with my spouse to prevent a divorce or some shit.

Told her I had no idea where my spouse was, that he had left after 6 months and that I had to hire a private investigator (and a police officer!) to serve my divorce papers. The whole thing was nuts.

ChewTiger,

I’m sorry you had to go through that.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Okay, but have you tried praying to Jesus for salvation? Like, really tried? I don’t think you tried hard enough, sweetie. I’m going to fail you and make you repeat the class.

oce,
@oce@jlai.lu avatar

Horrific

Wogi,

OBVIOUSLY he’s just playing hard to get because you don’t spend enough time cooking and bathing him. It’s actually your fault and if you accept sky Daddy hard enough he’ll come running back.

Postreader2814,

Slavery

Holzkohlen,

And the USA is supposed to be a first world country?

Demuniac, (edited )

Oh no it’s not, it hasn’t been that for a while. Some states may look like it, but some are straight up third world.

oce,
@oce@jlai.lu avatar

First world country only if you’re in a certain percentage of income.

Suburbanl3g3nd,

By original definition, USA is a first world country because they supported the USA and other Western countries in the cold war: www.investopedia.com/terms/f/first-world.asp

GiddyGap,

World looking at the United States: shaking head

Bonesy91,

So glad I signed up to vote this year. Missouri I’m disappointed in you so much right now

kofe,

As an AFAB Missourian I’m fucking terrified.

darth_tiktaalik,
@darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml avatar

Possibly related note: Jesus’s rules on divorce do not permit a woman to leave an abusive marriage.

Depending on which gospel you’re reading a man may either leave an adulterous wife(Matthew)or not under any circumstances(mark, luke).

xhieron,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

Possibly related note: Jesus’s rules on divorce do not permit a woman to leave an abusive marriage.

Citation needed por favor.

afraid_of_zombies,

Sermon on the Mount. It is right there in Matthew. Most famous speech he supposedly gave.

If you are curious both it and the Sermon on the plain probably came from the same document that is lost to us.

xhieron,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

Matthew 5? Yeah, it doesn’t say that.

afraid_of_zombies,

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

xhieron,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

Sure. I’ve read it. You may want to take a look into what divorce and adultery meant in First Century Judea.

afraid_of_zombies, (edited )

Not sure why I would considering that the man who wrote that gospel wasn’t from there and wasn’t of that religious group. Especially considering that “look at the context” is something only done by non-religious who haven’t yet finished cutting ties with their birth religion and is never a demand that the religious honor.

But yeah go right ahead. Explain how divorce and adultery really means exactly what you want it to me in “context”.

xhieron,
@xhieron@lemmy.world avatar

Sorry, 0 for 2 (or 3–you’re probably wrong about the author of Matthew too). Some folks are deeply religious and care a great deal about context and history, but something tells me you already know that.

The books are deeply flawed, but if you want to criticize them, you have to bother to read and understand them first. Making shit up because you have a chip on your shoulder doesn’t advance your position. All it does is prove the assumption of religious people, wise and ignorant alike, that you will readily lie if it serves your aim to paint their faith in a negative light.

When you engage in bad faith, you shouldn’t be alarmed when someone calls you on it, and it should come as no shock that people aren’t going to want to spend time correcting your errors.

afraid_of_zombies,

Yeah yeah I suck, get in line and take a number.

Noticed that can’t actually find a way to make the word divorce not be divorce and the word adultery not be adultery? A three paragraph rant about how much I suck with zero reference to the text or the supposed context of the text.

kromem,

It’s a bit annoying that they wrote it up so literally decades after he was dead.

Dude was also allegedly regularly referring to death and the afterlife using marriage metaphors of bridegrooms and bridal suites.

But yeah, the idea divorce is impossible had to do with actual marriage and not the whole ‘dying’ part.

(Though I suppose the sect that believed a dead body came back as opposed to the sects that denied physical resurrection would have preferred interpreting it as referring to actual marriage and not death…)

afraid_of_zombies,

It’s a bit annoying that they wrote it up so literally decades after he was dead.

It took a while to create a myth from scratch. Go read the early Batman and Superman comics, you can see how they struggled. In any case the restricted divorce rules probably came from Paul and the author of Mark’s pathetic attempts to read the OT Song of songs and Zeke 29.

kromem,

How do you think Song of Songs or Ezekiel 29 relate to the divorce prohibition?

afraid_of_zombies,

The erotica was reimagined and partially rewritten as an analogy for the relationship between Israel and God. In that context the idea of divorce becomes a seperation from God. Paul is not a fan of divorce unless of course the partner wasn’t a member of the church i.e. they were commiting adultery against God. He repurposed baptism to make it part of the marriage to Christ which wasn’t a big leap since Judaism already had a ritual like baptism prior to getting married. Then he flattened humanity, telling people that all were equally the same to the son of god making it acceptable for higher class, lower class, males, slaves, and all ethnic groups to be married to the same person.

All these vague ideas merged later when the Gospel writers needed to fill in the plot.

PrincessLeiasCat,

Horrifying. Fucking barbaric shit you see in other countries where women have no rights.

shalafi, (edited )

Once again, everyone going off after reading the headline.

The law merely states that the divorce cannot be finalized if the woman is pregnant. And that makes sense. Questions of paternity, child support, visitation, etc., must be part of the final divorce decree.

Would you rather the woman get a final judgement that lacks answers to the questions above? And again, nothing here traps the woman. She can leave. She can file for divorce. Proceedings can begin.

samus12345,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

And yet in most states, a pregnant woman can get a divorce finalized somehow.

afraid_of_zombies,

must be part of the final divorce decree.

Why?

Plague_Doctor,

This is insane! I’m so confused about why a pregnancy and a divorce have to be mutually exclusive. What was this intended to prevent? Other than the obvious reason of controlling women.

ryathal,

I guess you can make an argument that a pregnant woman isn’t of sound mind, but I think it’s more about ensuring parenthood is established outside the divorce process.

Yewb,

Missouri is a toilet bowl!

Weirdfish,

A few years ago, right before the pandemic in fact, I came very close to moving to Missouri.

At the time, turning the job down because of the incredibly low final offer was one of the hardest things I’d ever done.

Ended up finding a much better job and moving back to my home town in a decidedly blue state, really dodged a bullet on that one.

ColeSloth,

That’s crazy and so unfair that men can’t get divorced if their wives are pregnant, even if they’re being domestically abused.

Oh wait. It isn’t allowed to be seen or hated for looking at it from that direction. This is more gendered stereotyping, inferring that only women are being abused and want out of a bad relationship.

The main basis behind this law is that right now if you’re married and give birth, the husband’s name gets put in/assumed as the father. A woman who isn’t married can put down unknown as a father and make it more difficult for the father to have rights for their child. Getting a divorce while pregnant is only really needed as a custody grab for a woman to try and keep her child away from the other parent by not putting them on the birth certificate.

There’s not much else you can’t do when married that you can do when you’re single. You can still move out, you can still date, you can’t be arrested and brought back to your spouse, you can still open bank accounts. All it really benefits is being used as a tool against sharing custody if a child.

riodoro1,

This person is living on mars.

Or he’s just fucking stupid.

ColeSloth,

Yeah. Go ahead and explain how? Go ahead and say why people need to get divorced over a 9 month or less period. Explain how it hurts women more than men or vice versa.

forrgott, (edited )

Explain why getting divorced less than nine months earlier changes a single thing, you brainless twit.

Or, how about citing one example of this preventing a man from filing divorce. Just one will do.

ColeSloth,

I did explain what it changes. Getting divorced means the man loses his child until he can force a paternity test through the court system.

Kramkar,

I think the points you are making are fair. Interesting that you are getting so many downvotes. 🤔

ColeSloth,

Lemmy/reddit swings hard on hive mind and is very black and white on topics. Anything to appear anti lgbtq or against minorities or women’s life just gets an automatic “bad”.

But yeah. Being married doesn’t really do all that much. You don’t need a husband’s permission to do anything on your own anymore. The only reason a pregnant woman has to get a divorce while pregnant is to make it hard on the husband to have parental rights.

samus12345,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

That’s insulting to Martians!

https://rlv.zcache.com/marvin_the_martian_upset_statuette-r286b877552ea4290b1e037d985a9ad57_x7saw_8byvr_630.jpg

TSG_Asmodeus,
@TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world avatar

That’s crazy and so unfair that men can’t get divorced if their wives are pregnant, even if they’re being domestically abused.

This is a bizarre false equivalency. Yes, men get abused in relationships, no the numbers aren’t equal, and no-where in this article does it say men can’t suffer from this insane law.

This is something that was brought to me by folks in my community who shared that it was a huge problem,” Aune said. In a committee meeting, she shared the story of a woman affected by the existing law, saying: “Not only was she being physically and emotionally abused, but there was reproduction coercion used. When she found out she was pregnant and asked a lawyer if she could get a divorce, she was essentially told no. It was so demoralizing for her to hear that. She felt she had no options.”

She brought this forward specifically because a woman came to her in this situation. Men can go and protest this as well, but the story is about the woman who approached Aune. This bullshit where any time a woman complains about something unfair means some asshat has to jump in going “men too men too men too!”

NOBODY HAS SAID MEN DON’T SUFFER THIS SHIT. You’re making a strawman.

ColeSloth,

Being married doesn’t stop anyone from leaving a relationship, getting a job, moving anywhere they want, or opening a bank account. The only things it does in the short term of less than a year is prevent you from getting married to another. There isn’t a separate set of abuse laws if you’re married or single.

The only reason for needing a divorce on less than 9 months notice while pregnant is to try and remove custody for a child from a man. That’s almost the only reason. To make it hard for a father to see their child. To make a father spend months and thousands of dollars just so they can see their own kid.

So go ahead and tell me WHY it is important to get a divorce in less than 9 months. What is a reason to need to do it?

TSG_Asmodeus,
@TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world avatar

The only reason for needing a divorce on less than 9 months notice while pregnant is to try and remove custody for a child from a man. That’s almost the only reason. To make it hard for a father to see their child. To make a father spend months and thousands of dollars just so they can see their own kid. So go ahead and tell me WHY it is important to get a divorce in less than 9 months. What is a reason to need to do it?

Ok.

“Not only was she being physically and emotionally abused, but there was reproduction coercion used. When she found out she was pregnant and asked a lawyer if she could get a divorce, she was essentially told no. It was so demoralizing for her to hear that. She felt she had no options.”

What if the woman was raped? What if he removed a condom during sex? What if the realization she’d be bringing a child into a relationship with a physically and emotionally abusive person made her realize she had to get out?

I don’t know what point you think you’re making but you look like an absolute monster here.

ColeSloth,

Being married isn’t a hindrance or stopping point to any of the things you’ve mentioned.

kofe,

Maybe you could keep in mind that this state also had trigger laws banning abortion as soon as roe was overturned. The stakes are much fucking higher for people that can get pregnant.

ColeSloth,

Being married or divorced doesn’t change that, though.

afraid_of_zombies,

It doesn’t? Who gets to make medical decisions if she can’t while delivering the baby? Maybe Daddy is willing to risk losing a woman he is divorcing anyhow but wants the baby. Or maybe she is going to travel out of state for an abortion and he gets the idea that can be used against her in court.

I legit do not understand any woman who is fertile living in a state like that. Just knowing that a clump of cells has more rights than she does.

ColeSloth,

The husband doesn’t have any rights during delivery and isn’t allowed to be in the delivery room without the moms permission.

Beyond that, and in the event of emergencies where the spouse cannot make their own medical decisions, if they know they don’t want their partner they’ve separated from able to make any on their behalf, you can choose at any time in your life who has medical power of attorney in those situations. It’s free to do except for paying a notary (your bank will usually notarize for free) and the bit of paperwork takes like 10 minutes. Give who you made the medical poa a copy, and have your primary care physicians office place another with your medical records.

Drivebyhaiku, (edited )

Consider if you will that pregnancy is a state of extreme vulnerability. The chances of being killed by a parter are astronomically higher for pregnant people… With the case of a lot of insurance, banking policies and economic infrastructure is designed to enable spouses to be treated as a single person any property you acquire is by default mutually owned meaning there’s all manner of control which can be exerted by a spouse. You cannot file taxes separately and kinship treats your spouse as both your automatic inheritor and a legal authority with power of attorney in the event of you are incapacitated so you have someone that you cannot fully escape from because of legal ties. If you fear for your life from someone any contact is too much.

Considering too that it relatively common for men who were not previously abusive to suddenly change their personality, dropping their masks abruptly once someone is essentially trapped into having their baby then not giving someone the ability to extracate themselves from this situation is creating incentive to put on these deceptions. In the matter of childbearing the risk is borne only by one partner. It would stand to reason that if a non bearing partner causes an undue increase in the risks during the most vulnerable stages of pregnancy that they default on both their responsibilities and privileges as a parent.

Critically in a very short term divorce proceeding you do have to prove to a court cruelty or adultery which means obtaining reasonable proof these things exist. If your partner is proven cruel or a cheater then really are they worth defending their custody so vehemently? Most no fault divorce state requirements require a mutual separation period well beyond the gestation period of pregnancy (one year is the most common) . Even if you timed a separation so that you got pregnant right at the beginning of starting the clock that baby would be three months old before you would be eligible to divorce.

ironhydroxide,

Hmmm. State is trying to live up to it’s name, and make people live in misery.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • Durango
  • cubers
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • ethstaker
  • JUstTest
  • InstantRegret
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • everett
  • khanakhh
  • osvaldo12
  • cisconetworking
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • tester
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •