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.
Missouri is a garbage state.
Two other states have similar laws: Texas and Arkansas.
Why am I not surprised? The sad part is, Texans are delusional enough to think they’re better than Florida, lol.
I genuinely believe texans are the most delusional people in the entire US.
I am kinda calling BS on this, as I got divorced in Arkansas and there was never a question about my ex wife being pregnant nor was it ever mentioned by any attorney or judge. Maybe it’s only used when there is a clear sign of pregnancy or when the husband wants to control the wife who may have filed for divorce. This could be a new law as I got divorced over 10 years ago.
This law was JUST put in place
No, the law was passed in 1973. At the time, the Missouri legislature was still controlled by Democrats.
It was trying to stop men who would finalize a divorce before the birth of their child in order to avoid establishing their paternity.
I still know people who spout texas being the “freesest state in the union”
Maybe for white protestant men?
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.
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.
“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…
What the fuck?
How are you surprised?
Did you think conservatives finally started being honest with what they wanted?
They didn’t stop with forced births, they won’t stop with this, they want to go back to when women were literally property. Under control of their fathers until sold off in marriage for a dowry.
Because that’s what the Bible says.
They just know that it’s easier one step at a time then all at once.
If they get women as property, they’ll push for other races and religions to also be property, because the Bible also says slavery was cool based on race/religion.
They’re far right Abrahamic extremists, same as any other.
I am honestly surprised. I don’t live in the US and I just cannot fathom this being a law anywhere. Never in my wildest dreams.
The idea that you want a custody deal in place before the divorce, therefor pregnant women can’t get divorced is absurd and assumes a family law/divorce court wouldn’t ask that question, so I doubt that’s actually the reason.
This law just seems harmful and incentivizes awful awful things.
This law just seems harmful and incentivizes awful awful things.
Welcome to America
Abrahamic
Just say Christian. No need to drag Jews, Muslims, Baha’is, etc. into this mess.
They all have far right extremists, and they want the same things. The only difference is what prophets they follow, which I don’t care about.
The far right extremists are the same as far as I’m concerned and I refuse to treat any of them as somehow better or worse.
Holy fuck, that’s been a law since the 70s! 50 years of supposed progress and that’s still on the books. How far we’ve come.
It was considered progressive at the time, passed by a Democratic legislature in fact.
This law was meant to stop men from divorcing pregnant women as a way to avoid child support. By forcing men to wait until after birth, courts could set up child support during the divorce proceedings.
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.
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.
