687

An Insane Missouri Law Prevents Pregnant Women From Getting Divorced—Even If They’re Victims of Domestic Violence (www.vanityfair.com)

submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] indomara@lemmy.world 76 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] ChewTiger@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 6 points 8 months ago

Horrific

[-] ech@lemm.ee 64 points 8 months ago

Especially if they're victims of domestic violence

Male or female, what other purpose could a law like this serve except to give abusers a route to legally trap their victim?

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago

For those who don't have time to read the title or the article:

Missouri insane

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] Plague_Doctor@lemmy.world 32 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Can't read the entire article. Is this something new?

[-] Tower@lemm.ee 31 points 8 months ago

Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas. Lawmakers claim it's to prevent issues with things like child support, visitation, etc, before paternity can be established. This article does a pretty good job summarizing the situations:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/28/pregnant-women-divorce-missouri-texas-arkansas-arizona/72763848007/

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Paternity tests can be done during pregnancy...

[-] loveluvieah@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

I'm a paralegal, and Wisconsin is the same. We had a headache in one case a couple years ago where nobody knew the other party was pregnant, not even her attorney, until the final hearing and she was asked the generic question about pregnancy before finalizing. We then had to do a partial final judgment and schedule another final hearing a couple of months after her expected due date to fully finalize it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Law is from 1973 and was amended in 2016.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

I was hoping it was some old bullshit on the books nobody looks at anymore. Do people tho? I have been here in MO my whole life and this is the first ive heard of this. Is it something they actually enforce?

[-] nelly_man@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

It sounds like this it is actively preventing people from getting divorced.

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.”

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

Yay. Another fucking reason to hate this shit hole state.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 18 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Demuniac@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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@jlai.lu 8 points 8 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MJKee9@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 17 points 8 months ago

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

[-] darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml 16 points 8 months ago

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).

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Bonesy91@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

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

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

As an AFAB Missourian I'm fucking terrified.

[-] Yewb@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Missouri is a toilet bowl!

[-] Weirdfish@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Postreader2814@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

Slavery

load more comments

this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024

687 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers

2464 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News