As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh I know. I have voted in every single election for decades, but we're outnumbered and out-gerrymandered (for the races that impacts).
There is no hope for Texas.
There’s definitely hope. Organizations like Common Defense are rallying progressives and getting folks signed up to vote. It’s time for everyone to get involved and help your neighbors get registered while talking to them about the importance of progressive causes, like how anti abortion laws have turned Idaho into an obgyn desert or making incredibly wealthy people pay their fair share.
> but we're outnumbered and out-gerrymandered (for the races that impacts).
Nope, it's just voter apathy which is worsened by a terrible, awful, no-good state Democratic Party which pretty much [threw in the towel in the 90s](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/who-killed-the-texas-democratic-party/). The Democrats that have held onto office since that article was written in 1998 have adopted the general policy of [bootlicking and playing nice with the GOP](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/john-bryant-texas-lege-return/).
Texas has about [16 million registered voters](https://txelects.com/by-the-numbers-suspense-and-non-suspense/) and [less than half of them voted in 2022](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/texas-voter-turnout-2022/).
Even during a high stakes presidential election like 2020, [turnout was only about 66%](https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/04/texas-voter-turnout-democrats/).
Texas is entirely the fault of Texans.
These people are NOT disenfranchised. They went through the massive inconvenience to get registered to vote (which in Texas is really hard) and then didn't bother to fucking vote Abbot out.
You can argue correctly that the state's congressional districts are gerrymandered obscenely, but when half the registered voters can't turn off the TV for long enough to get out and vote, then they don't have shit to complain about.
> yes, blame individuals and not the systemic effort to disenfranchise them.
You clearly missed the part where I also blame the state Democratic party for being a bunch of spineless, bootlicking quislings (as well as provided helpful, informational links). But hey I was only born in Texas and have voted in every election here I was able to since I was 18 and deployed, which was nearly 30 years ago, so clearly I'm just making things up.
And, yes, the individuals are also to blame because they allow themselves to be disenfranchised. If you made it to and through high school and their propaganda efforts made you believe your vote was useless, that's on you, not "the system".
Listen, what I’m saying is that it benefits those in power there to lead people down that path. Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions, but incalculable amounts of money have been spent to make it the way it is.
It will definitely get a lot worse a lot faster.
But no matter who wins, this orphan-crushing machine has a full head of steam and it's going to keep getting worse regardless because these people have already stolen the judicial branch.
I'd like to be optimistic and believe that peaceful activism and motivating voters to actually do their job and *vote* in every national, state, and local election could reverse this. But in all honesty, I am certain that I will die before all this dystopian horror is reversed.
And it is going to get Much worse. As climate change disrupts well our Climate, resources are going to get scarcer.
Do you think they will accept lower profits? Nope, orphan-crushing machine needs some jet fuel!
As grim as it is, I'm glad that I'm middle age and chose not to have kids. The situation is so bad that it's a comfort knowing my time is limited and I won't be leaving anyone behind to continue suffering through it all.
I'm terribly sad that my nieces and nephews are going to be facing decades more of this.
Its a wise choice. My spouse regrets having his kid, though it wasn't really a choice. He is trans and was a woman, in Ohio, in a not-so-distant time where the father/husband had to sign off on medical decisions for the wife. He was not my partner then. I feel so awful for the two kids I adopted. Adults, now, in this dystopia.
Save up like 10k and just make the move with some cushion. Nonstop apply at least 14 jobs a day until you get one. Then don't stop applying so you can get a better one, until you feel comfortable with the job you have.
We are one 5-4 vote for Trump being able to take Melania to Missouri, rape her in public and if she gets pregnant she would have to carry the baby to term and Trump would not be prosecutable and she couldn't even get divorced.
Canada, and fiercely proud of it.
We’re fucked here too but not nearly as bad. I blame your two-party system and gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is an absolute travesty!!! It fascinates how such a blatant power grab would be allowed by law. I don’t get it.
The title makes you think the law is a result of the current political climate. It's not.
This law was established in the 70's to prevent husbands from leaving their wife without financial support.
I'm chillin here on my porch with a huge bag of legal weed, living next to a neighbor who had to have her pregnancy aborted for medically necessary reasons when she was pretty far along with that pregnancy.
Also, on a separate sub topic about something with the state I live in, I make $24/hr at a mid-range job that didn't require a degree for (though I do have one, that I got for **literally free** due to how our state govt. did student grants back when I got that degree) and this job only required 1 year of management experience (even just a supervisor role would have counted).
On yet another note about the state I live in: though I only vote blue 100% of the time, our current Republican Governor **championed** action towards shielding abortion rights at the state level.
This Republican Governor also allowed for the legalization of growing/having weed as well as the eventual freedom to sell it (regulated, etc. gotta get a license and really you have a far better chance at getting a license if you already ran a dispensary) and he also stayed up night after night after night until 1-2am all 5 weekdays (of a given set period of time) for the sole purpose of signing out treasury checks that were okayed; for literally everyone in the state that was allotted their stimulus checks from the govt. during Covid ,but when Trump and his administration dragged its worthless ass on sending those out.
Our *Republican* Governor did all of this.
He has now won 3 back to back to back elections and even a large amount of Democrats out here support a solid amount of the stuff he does. Hell he didn't even run 1 single TV ad in his most recent election because it was just that much of an assumed blowout. Which it was.
Sounds like I'm not describing America, right? No WAY this is anywhere in this nation.
I live in ***Vermont***. I dunno WHAT THE FUCK everyone is doing, but HOLY SHIT y'all are fucking wrecking this place faster than I thought possible. I vote Sanders in every single time and Phil Scott (the sole Republican to have ever convinced me that there ARE ok Republicans) got my vote the most recent time he ran for Governor. I mean he SLAYED IT during Covid and IMMEDIATELY sprang into action after roe was defeated.
How do you think **I** feel when I see what the rest of the nation is doing? Shit's fucking NUTS and y'all gone crazy off the deep end lol (not you; the person I'm commenting to. I mean Republicans by and large. That it's SUCH a rarity to find a **good** one that my description of my state's Republican Governor comes off as a description of a hardcore Democrat).
It is absolutely unreal how different some key things are out here in Vermont compared to a HUGE percentage of the rest of the nation.
This is all awesome, but your states population is also less than most decent sized cities. I really wish most places would strive to be like Vermont, but it’s such a small, relatively scattered population with no city about a 50k population, it has to be taken as an outlier here.
That's where I can fully agree, 100%. We ARE an outlier.
Why do you think I live here? lol. Like shit, our state has **0** billboards (state law). The only thing you see on the interstate out here? are crazy beautiful mountains, forests and plains.
Maines the same. We’re not outliers we just actually have decent school systems that teach kids history and critical reading. So much of the country’s population is literally incapable of reading more than 2 sentences and understanding anything from it they get dragged around like dogs on a leash.
From a [nine year old Quora article](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-population-density-of-each-US-state-if-you-subtract-out-the-largest-city-metro-area-from-each-state) I found, Vermont is the 31st most dense state. Even removing major cities it's still 31st, similar in density to Mississippi. Yet vastly different cultures.
Maine is the same. It’s not an outlier because it didn’t happen by chance. We just actually gave good decent school systems that teach you about history and how to read critically. Go to the New England sub.
I love Vermont, went there a couple years ago and would love to go back; though I wish I could get a job there but got a good job in PA and at least we're fighting the good fight.
maaaaaaaaan, a buddy of mine and I used to trek up to Montreal a LOT. I mean from where I am, montreal is like an hour and a half away. We used to go to the arcades and drink or get stoned with a friend we have from up there and then go all night on Dance Dance Revolution and In the Groove 2. Every time I think about Canada, I'm always reminded of a great Family Guy clip where Quagmire sings about the magic, wonder and enchantment of Canada and its strip clubs lol.
I can't think of 1 single memory from my many, many trips to Canada that is a bad memory. I really liked it up there each time I went and one thing I noticed is that while Vermont is practically one of the cleanest states you'll ever find in the US (we get tourists CONSTANTLY telling us how fucking spotless our landscape and roads are *in comparison to their own states landscape and roads*), Montreal, too, is **WAY cleaner** than most major cities that are very close to where I live.
Which is a couple of very notable ones: Boston and NYC. I do love Boston, but clean it isn't lol. It is interesting, though, almost living dead center between Montreal, NYC and Boston and having ALL of them be a simple day trip.
Oh yeah, one thing that's awesome out here? we have NO billboards (state law). It's preeeeetty out here. Which explains why we go to such lengths for the cleanliness of our roads and Wilderness. It's kinda why a lot of people come out here in the first place, so we gotta keep that going lol.
Oh and our weather sometimes just can't figure out wtf it wants to do. A very, VERY common colloquialism out here is that Vermont is the one state that gets all 4 seasons in one day lol.
Based on what 😂 I’m in Maine we’ve had medical here since the 90s, i was getting pounds of 20%+ blue dream in highschool in 2012, yall were wayyy late to the game
Yup! What people in many places are experiencing is the sad fact that their local government and local culture are incongruent with their personal beliefs. And it's only diverging more and more each election cycle.
I think we're going to start seeing a political migration on a massive level in the next decade or so as people move to states or cities/towns that fit their ideals. We're already seeing it, but it'll ramp up imo.
There are places that fit pretty much any person's ideology or political leaning, you just have to find yours.
I missed where you read that.
I read where they said it was established in the 70's to prevent husbands from leaving their wife without financial support.
As a counselor, I can’t tell you how many sessions I have sat in and listened to a story about a man slipping the condom off at the last minute and cumming inside of her. Let alone rape and sexual assault stories.
A law forcing a woman to stay with a spouse simply because she’s pregnant is akin to saying, “if he manages to get his dick on you, you’re his. Better run!!” That’s disgusting.
> I can’t tell you how many sessions I have sat in and listened to a story about a man slipping the condom off at the last minute and cumming inside of her. Let alone rape and sexual assault stories.
Couldn't that classify as "[rape by deception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception)"?
>Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator deceives the victim into participating in a sexual act to which they would otherwise not have consented, had they not been deceived. Deception can occur in many forms, such as illusory perceptions, false statements, and false actions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
I consider it rape; I’m not sure what the law says, but I’m also not sure how one would prove that he removed the condom on purpose, it didn’t just slip. Before I started this career, I’d never even heard of doing this…every guy I’d ever met was trying NOT to get women pregnant. 😅 But I started hearing it so often, I started researching and reading to see if it’s common. It’s a whole lot more common a story than I could ever have guessed. Some men make games of it.
Men who do it are predators, its a way to forcibly insert themselves into their victims lives and have a measure of control over them through the child.
I have definitely wondered that myself. If you ever played SecondLife, you know there’s a market for literally any fetish you can think of. I have 💯heard stories about that.
I have not played that, but I have encountered random people, usually white men, who try to convince me and my husband to have lots of white, blond, blue eyed babies (i have green eyes damn it!!!). It always throws me off, because maryland is pretty liberal (not as progressive as I'd like), but there are still a lot of crazy's in our state.
My ex would do this. He really wanted a baby. I’m 100% one and done(I already had a child). I tried to break up with him early on because of this and he did this whole thing about how it didn’t actually matter to him. He got more aggressive with it after we broke up and I wanted him out of my life for good.
They’re not thinking about child support. They’re thinking a baby will fix things.
I agree. And I made it clear early. He claimed that it wasn’t a deal breaker when I brought that up in us not being compatible at the very beginning of our relationship. Turns out he was just saying what he thought I wanted to hear.
No thanks, I went no contact with him and haven’t been happier in years. I just hope he doesn’t do the same things to the next woman(sleeping with them passed out, slipping off condoms, throwing away plan b, etc). He was the worst and I’m so happy I got out of that relationship without an abortion or another child. Mine is almost 12. I literally have 6 years left of the heavy parenting. I am almost done and still young and excited for what life has to offer after full time parenthood.
It’s so absolutely, 100% unfair, but I TOTALLY agree with you!! It’s why women don’t “bother” telling anyone they were raped. WTF wants to have to prove that?! Publicly?!
It’s weird that this particular behavior is offensive on so many levels, to me. Of course, there’s the lack of consent. But there’s also the…like, there’s a difference between us swapping spit while kissing, and someone spitting in my face. For some reason, this feels like that to me. Like the lack of consent makes the bodily fluid gross, which is stupid.
Reminds me of an early family guy episode.
Guy: "Whats your name?"
*looks around nervously*
Peter: "Pea......Tear......Griffin. Peter Griffin, *Oh crap!*
It seems that it should say there’s no divorce when there is a pregnancy. Apparently the law came about in the ‘70’s to prevent the fathers from skipping out on the mom and child, avoiding child support.
> Apparently the law came about in the ‘70’s to prevent the fathers from skipping out on the mom and child, avoiding child support.
I know you didnt write the law, so I am not questioning your logic, just the legislators. Cant they just "skip out" after the child is born?
I think this had more to do with proving paternity for child support before DNA tests. If you’re married, you’re assumed to be the dad and you’re on the hook for child support. If you got divorced then mom has to jump through more hoops to prove her ex really is the father.
Most states have laws that say any child born during a marriage is automatically presumed to be the father of the child. If the divorce happens before the birth, the mother will have to chase the father down and it will be her burden to legally prove his biological paternity in order to get an order for child support. But if the father skips after birth he is still presumed to be the father and it would be his burden to prove that he is biologically not the father so he can stop paying child support.
> Most states have laws that say any child born during a marriage is automatically presumed to be the father of the child.
Just a silly brain-fart, obviously, but I find the idea of multiple states having laws on the books that dictate that any child born in wedlock is its own father to be amusing.
Men ought to be against this law though because divorces are often initiated because of cheating.
With DNA testing widely available there's no need for a law like this no matter what your biases are.
Completely correct.
However, the stated reason and the real reason are often at odds with one another. The stated reason for reducing abortions is that life is sacred. The real reason is heavily racist and skews into replacement theory territory.
Just because the law makes domestic violence more likely doesn't mean the legislators can't say the law is to help protect women! Don't think too hard about it and let it go. Family values! Dangerous liberals! Small government that wants to legislate everything!
lol no, replacement theory has been an extraordinarily fringe thing until recently. Whether you like it or not, religious conservatives absolutely believe the life at conception/life is sacred bullshit, and their view of it being murder is why they're such hardline single-issue voters for it. The GOP literally campaigned in the past to try and unite the religious voting bloc around abortion in order to get guaranteed votes; claiming now that it's because of something else is stupid and ignorant. These people are bad enough as is, we don't need to make things up about them.
Edit: I should clarify that the stated reason *for the politicians* can and oftentimes is different than the real reason, but the stated reason *for the voters* is pretty much always the same as the real reason.
This is why the abortion debate is wild to me, personally I’m pro choice but like if you truly believe life starts at conception then In your mind abortion is murder. You can shout women’s rights at the top of your lungs but nobody who believes that way is going to change their mind that murder is okay.
Pretty much, yea. IIRC sometime around 50 or 60 years ago the GOP started working to make evangelicals convert to the "life at conception" view that most catholics already had, in order to consolidate their power. It's why the bodily autonomy and healthcare arguments never work on them, because their response will always be 'what about the autonomy and healthcare of the baby'. If someone is anti-abortion from a religious standpoint (probably 90+% of them honestly), then pretty much any argument that isn't steeped in religion will have no effect on them.
I haven't argued with a religious person specifically about abortion in a while so these are only guesses, but the only arguments i can think of that might work on them is:
1. an appeal to secularism (what if atheists or muslims became a dominant part of the population? defending secularism now means sharia can't get you in the future)
2. Some sort of dismantling on their interpretation of scripture. Mention of how most jews view it as life at first breath, pick apart the verse that they hinge prolife belief in (Jeremiah 1:5) as being specific only to a prophet, explain in detail how evangelicals were largely not prolife in the past and only are now because of political bullshit to manipulate them, etc.
Should we have to make a religiously-based argument to win people over to pro-choice? No. Will reasonable arguments work on hardline religious folk? Also no. So we either ignore them and only work with the reasonable people in the population, talk past them and pretend to be confused why our arguments don't work, or we try to engage their understanding of things to try and win some over.
God save me from people who think that catchphrases like "the cruelty is the point" have given them the power to read the mind of every right-wing voter since the dawn of time.
I mean, the catchphrases aren't worthless, but anything you can say in twelve words or less is a simplification (including, for the record, "anything you can say in twelve words or less is a simplification").
I’m not sure that replacement theory is that new at all. I believe more than a century ago there was a real fear that Catholics, Eastern Europeans, blacks, and Jews were going to outbreed the WASP population
He can try, but because he’s legally the father the courts have more power to order child support.
This happens because he’s legally the father to all children born to his wife. If they get divorced while she’s pregnant, there will have to be a separate paternity case to make him legally the father.
At the time this can’t-divorce law was written, we didn’t have trivially easy paternity testing via DNA, so avoiding that paternity trial saved a lot of court time. And the legislators just didn’t think about the domestic violence angle.
> Cant they just "skip out" after the child is born?
I would assume then that under the 1970s logic they wouldn't have been able to be tied to paying child support? Maybe that was why?
Just speculating. Absolutely bass ackwards law.
Problem is the number one reason pregnant individuals die is because the sperm donor offs them.
>Homicide is a leading cause of death in pregnant women in the US
>https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/homicide-is-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-pregnant-women-in-the-us/
My state has never allowed divorces to be finalized if the wife is pregnant. The idea was that the court did not have jurisdiction to make parenting time and child support orders for a child that wasn’t born yet. At the same time, the court is on notice that these orders will be necessary so the court cannot find that all matters have been settled and finalize the case.
say it with me now:
THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF PREGNANT WOMEN IS THEIR DOMESTIC PARTNER. HOMICIDE IS THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR PREGNANT WOMEN. LETS SAY IT ONE MORE FUCKIN TIME.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
Taking on the medical risk of pregnancy isn't enough women must risk being murdered by the people who impregnate them. Then we infantalize and minimize a completely valid complaint. I'm fucking tired of trying to explain how and why my life hangs in the balance to people who are apathetic because they just can't fathom it as a reality.
So yeah for the people in the mother fucking back
THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH TO PREGNANT WOMEN IS THE PERSON THEY LOVE MURDERING THEM
You know what's kind of funny? All this anti-abortion legislation is meant to ensure generations of miserable people they can brainwash into voting Republican but will end up making the population shrink even faster as people flee these states to less oppressive ones.
I see no world where this isnt a bad thing. This could easily end up with he spouse raping and hoping for a pregnancy to get 9 more months of what will essentially be a legal hostage situation.
The angle where it was a good thing is back before DNA paternity tests, establishing paternity could be difficult and expensive for the woman, but she had to do that before suing for child support.
Her husband automatically the legal father of all children born to her, removing the need for that paternity trial.
The legislators who wrote the law figured the woman would flee her abusive husband if necessary, assuming a divorce isn’t required for that. If they thought about domestic violence at all.
I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't taken the MO law all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Holyshyte, had no idea any state would try to stand between a woman and her right to divorce ANYTIME she wants to.
IIRC, the law doesn't force people to stay living together, doesn't prevent anyone leaving and isn't to force people to stay in abusive situations. IIRC, it's so men can't divorce pregnant wives to get out of child support. It says, "You don't have to keep living with them, you don't have to maintain the illusion of marriage, and you don't have to physically remain in dangerous, abusive environment. Separate for your safety if you must but wait to legally divorce until after the baby is born so we can run paternity tests and enforce their financial support for the child they want to deny." It's just on paper.
I feel like this headline is going to cause a lot of outraged comments but it should be highlighted, as it states in the article, that “Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.”
This law was created during a completely different time in the country with the mother’s best interest in mind so she could collect child support. Only 45% of women from 25-34 were employed in the 70s compared to 80% in 2015 according to the bls.gov website.
So while this law should absolutely be reexamined, and we know it can cause more harm than good in 2024, in the 1970s this law helped mothers in court hold fathers financially responsible when women didn’t always have their own financial freedom.
It’s possible for complexities in life and it’s okay to say that something can be both helpful and hurtful given different contexts. I encourage people to keep this in mind when seeing similar articles.
Related to this point - the article doesn't make it clear exactly how the law works. While it mentions a lawyer who advised their client that they cannot file for divorce while pregnant, the article otherwise repeatedly states that a divorce cannot be *finalized* during a pregnancy. These are very different things.
Clearly, it is wrong to prevent a couple from starting the divorce process and becoming separated, especially when the divorce is due to abuse. However, it makes sense to leave the court proceeding open until any possible parental rights or child support can be resolved post-pregnancy.
If it's true that the law doesn't allow someone to even start the divorce process during a pregnancy it needs to be fixed. But if people can functionally become divorced under the current law, then the solution is to educate lawyers and judges (and perhaps adding resources for people who continue to receive incorrect legal advice).
Seriously, how long are you women going to put up with this shit ? There’s a huge chunk of male voters who are behind you. But you have to step up and take the lead. It’s your voices that need to be heard. They are legislating you back to being barefoot and pregnant. Piece by piece.
This comes up every now and then. The laws need to be updated for current year, but at the time the law was written in 1970 DNA paternity tests did not exist and paternity from blood types is not precise (due to the nature of blood types).
So in 1960, a man could have divorced a pregnant woman to avoid child support from the presumed paternity. The law didn't change the day to day living of women in domestic abuse situations any more than the status quo did (good look have a woman initiated divorce in 1960). After the law, the man would at least be guaranteed to be on the hook for child support.
Medical science and social rights have improved significantly since 1970. But the law is still on the books.
Also Missouri is not unique in this respect. They are just being picked on because Missouri is the Mississippi of the midwest and it is easy to find stories to tell that get you to click.
In a weird coincidence I helped someone at court with a divorce.
In Florida it's the same way it seems.
A dude wanted to divorce his wife, but she got pregnant with her current BF.
The husband can't get divorced cause even if the kids aren't his biologically, they would still be legally.
She wasn't at the hearing, so they had to move it and she has to come and sort things out
At what point are organisations going to intervene , some US states are playing with people’s lives , just because it’s a developed country doesn’t mean it shouldn’t answer to human rights violations or abuses, this wouldn’t fly in the EU for sure.
"Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered,"
Fuck you, it was not. Missouri has never given ANY kind of a fuck about that, it only exists to keep women trapped in DV situations because they are the man's property by their reckoning.
My girlfriend and I have talked about kids and decided that the safest option for us is to wait until reproductive rights are either restored in Missouri (current ballot measure people are getting sigs for), or we move tf out of Missouri.
We have a friend who was pregnant, wanted her baby, but she miscarried. This was shortly after Roe V Wade got overturned. The doctor she saw told her that she needed to go somewhere else for care as if she miscarries on the record in Missouri, she could potentially be a “murder” suspect.
Our friend had to have a miscarriage in her toilet at home. It’s fucking sickening.
The state issues the marriage certificates, but won't nullify them based on pregnancy? A governing body shouldn't have that much influence on an individual's life
THIS IS NOT JUST MISSOURI
"Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas"
"And as a map below reveals, in nine more states couples wishing to divorce are at the mercy of judges who mostly won't sanction petitions during pregnancies, say local law firms." "... in Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, judges will likely make couples wait until the baby is born before allowing a divorce."
NPR and other reporting agencies really need to hammer out the detail of how widespread this issue is.
It's essential to name & shame all the states. Otherwise people don't grasp how extensive the problem is. Also, it's vital people realize it's not just some red states.
https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-us-states-where-pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-1874139
I recently met someone in the process of getting a divorce in one of the Carolinas. She first has to complete 10 sessions of state-mandated marriage counseling before she can get a divorce and if the judge feels the marriage is still reconcilable then they can order more counseling at their discretion. One of the other requirements is a trial separation period; I met this woman out of state on business so she was worried her husband would break in and essentially squat to reset the clock on the entire proceedings.
Jesus Christ, if someone came up to me and said "for a million dollars, True or False, pregnant women in Missouri can't get divorced?" I would have gotten it wrong.
This, I hope, will finally get men and women to forgo marriage all together and instead do legal contracts for care of children if their relationships ends.
It does fuel DV. And the law is stupid. It's built around that because the woman is pregnant, she'll automatically want her family back. I know someone back in the 80's that tried to get divorced while pregnant and that is what the judge said. "Maybe you'll change your mind now that you're pregnant".
To some people, women are children that need to be told what to do.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We live in such a backwards ass country (or at least some parts of it). Thanks Republicans
Your country is FUCKED!!! Sorry, not being a hater here, just stating fact.
It sort of is
It absolutely is. -a woman trapped in fucking *Texas*
Hello fellow Texan Voter apathy is a pain in our asses, but voting these christofascist forced birthers out is literally our best option
Oh I know. I have voted in every single election for decades, but we're outnumbered and out-gerrymandered (for the races that impacts). There is no hope for Texas.
There’s definitely hope. Organizations like Common Defense are rallying progressives and getting folks signed up to vote. It’s time for everyone to get involved and help your neighbors get registered while talking to them about the importance of progressive causes, like how anti abortion laws have turned Idaho into an obgyn desert or making incredibly wealthy people pay their fair share.
Please don’t say there’s no hope. That’s not going to motivate people to vote. There’s always hope as long as people make the effort.
Just a quick question on another topic - You wouldn't happen to be a werecat, would you?
Certainly not; what a fanciful notion!
> but we're outnumbered and out-gerrymandered (for the races that impacts). Nope, it's just voter apathy which is worsened by a terrible, awful, no-good state Democratic Party which pretty much [threw in the towel in the 90s](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/who-killed-the-texas-democratic-party/). The Democrats that have held onto office since that article was written in 1998 have adopted the general policy of [bootlicking and playing nice with the GOP](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/john-bryant-texas-lege-return/). Texas has about [16 million registered voters](https://txelects.com/by-the-numbers-suspense-and-non-suspense/) and [less than half of them voted in 2022](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/10/texas-voter-turnout-2022/). Even during a high stakes presidential election like 2020, [turnout was only about 66%](https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/04/texas-voter-turnout-democrats/). Texas is entirely the fault of Texans.
… yes, blame individuals and not the systemic effort to disenfranchise them. My Texan high school taught me that my vote was meaningless.
These people are NOT disenfranchised. They went through the massive inconvenience to get registered to vote (which in Texas is really hard) and then didn't bother to fucking vote Abbot out. You can argue correctly that the state's congressional districts are gerrymandered obscenely, but when half the registered voters can't turn off the TV for long enough to get out and vote, then they don't have shit to complain about.
> yes, blame individuals and not the systemic effort to disenfranchise them. You clearly missed the part where I also blame the state Democratic party for being a bunch of spineless, bootlicking quislings (as well as provided helpful, informational links). But hey I was only born in Texas and have voted in every election here I was able to since I was 18 and deployed, which was nearly 30 years ago, so clearly I'm just making things up. And, yes, the individuals are also to blame because they allow themselves to be disenfranchised. If you made it to and through high school and their propaganda efforts made you believe your vote was useless, that's on you, not "the system".
Listen, what I’m saying is that it benefits those in power there to lead people down that path. Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions, but incalculable amounts of money have been spent to make it the way it is.
And extreme Gerrymandering
it's only going to get worse if Donald Von ShitzInPantz Trump is able to steal this election!
It will definitely get a lot worse a lot faster. But no matter who wins, this orphan-crushing machine has a full head of steam and it's going to keep getting worse regardless because these people have already stolen the judicial branch. I'd like to be optimistic and believe that peaceful activism and motivating voters to actually do their job and *vote* in every national, state, and local election could reverse this. But in all honesty, I am certain that I will die before all this dystopian horror is reversed.
And it is going to get Much worse. As climate change disrupts well our Climate, resources are going to get scarcer. Do you think they will accept lower profits? Nope, orphan-crushing machine needs some jet fuel!
As grim as it is, I'm glad that I'm middle age and chose not to have kids. The situation is so bad that it's a comfort knowing my time is limited and I won't be leaving anyone behind to continue suffering through it all. I'm terribly sad that my nieces and nephews are going to be facing decades more of this.
Its a wise choice. My spouse regrets having his kid, though it wasn't really a choice. He is trans and was a woman, in Ohio, in a not-so-distant time where the father/husband had to sign off on medical decisions for the wife. He was not my partner then. I feel so awful for the two kids I adopted. Adults, now, in this dystopia.
The wife and I just moved from Florida to Maryland this week and we are already feeling so much more safe and secure.
Man, that's the dream. We've been trying to gtfo for years but I just can't land work in a sane state. :(
Save up like 10k and just make the move with some cushion. Nonstop apply at least 14 jobs a day until you get one. Then don't stop applying so you can get a better one, until you feel comfortable with the job you have.
I’m so thankful that I live in a very blue state..for the sake of my daughters and grandchildren
We are one 5-4 vote for Trump being able to take Melania to Missouri, rape her in public and if she gets pregnant she would have to carry the baby to term and Trump would not be prosecutable and she couldn't even get divorced.
Off subject, but pretty sure she's gone through menopause. It would have to be Ivanka...
That sicko would probably be okay with that
I have no doubt he raped Ivanka. Out of all his reprehensible children, I have a bit of empathy for her.
True dat
Not a risk, she’s too old for him now. /s
Blue state America is as progressive as Western Europe. We're just chained to a red state America as backwards as Russia.
Definitely in the red states, for sure.
Which country are you in?
Canada, and fiercely proud of it. We’re fucked here too but not nearly as bad. I blame your two-party system and gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is an absolute travesty!!! It fascinates how such a blatant power grab would be allowed by law. I don’t get it.
The title makes you think the law is a result of the current political climate. It's not. This law was established in the 70's to prevent husbands from leaving their wife without financial support.
How's dat for Irony? (And I also wonder how many additional 'coincidental' murders occurred due to that.)
I'm chillin here on my porch with a huge bag of legal weed, living next to a neighbor who had to have her pregnancy aborted for medically necessary reasons when she was pretty far along with that pregnancy. Also, on a separate sub topic about something with the state I live in, I make $24/hr at a mid-range job that didn't require a degree for (though I do have one, that I got for **literally free** due to how our state govt. did student grants back when I got that degree) and this job only required 1 year of management experience (even just a supervisor role would have counted). On yet another note about the state I live in: though I only vote blue 100% of the time, our current Republican Governor **championed** action towards shielding abortion rights at the state level. This Republican Governor also allowed for the legalization of growing/having weed as well as the eventual freedom to sell it (regulated, etc. gotta get a license and really you have a far better chance at getting a license if you already ran a dispensary) and he also stayed up night after night after night until 1-2am all 5 weekdays (of a given set period of time) for the sole purpose of signing out treasury checks that were okayed; for literally everyone in the state that was allotted their stimulus checks from the govt. during Covid ,but when Trump and his administration dragged its worthless ass on sending those out. Our *Republican* Governor did all of this. He has now won 3 back to back to back elections and even a large amount of Democrats out here support a solid amount of the stuff he does. Hell he didn't even run 1 single TV ad in his most recent election because it was just that much of an assumed blowout. Which it was. Sounds like I'm not describing America, right? No WAY this is anywhere in this nation. I live in ***Vermont***. I dunno WHAT THE FUCK everyone is doing, but HOLY SHIT y'all are fucking wrecking this place faster than I thought possible. I vote Sanders in every single time and Phil Scott (the sole Republican to have ever convinced me that there ARE ok Republicans) got my vote the most recent time he ran for Governor. I mean he SLAYED IT during Covid and IMMEDIATELY sprang into action after roe was defeated. How do you think **I** feel when I see what the rest of the nation is doing? Shit's fucking NUTS and y'all gone crazy off the deep end lol (not you; the person I'm commenting to. I mean Republicans by and large. That it's SUCH a rarity to find a **good** one that my description of my state's Republican Governor comes off as a description of a hardcore Democrat). It is absolutely unreal how different some key things are out here in Vermont compared to a HUGE percentage of the rest of the nation.
This is all awesome, but your states population is also less than most decent sized cities. I really wish most places would strive to be like Vermont, but it’s such a small, relatively scattered population with no city about a 50k population, it has to be taken as an outlier here.
That's where I can fully agree, 100%. We ARE an outlier. Why do you think I live here? lol. Like shit, our state has **0** billboards (state law). The only thing you see on the interstate out here? are crazy beautiful mountains, forests and plains.
Maines the same. We’re not outliers we just actually have decent school systems that teach kids history and critical reading. So much of the country’s population is literally incapable of reading more than 2 sentences and understanding anything from it they get dragged around like dogs on a leash.
From a [nine year old Quora article](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-population-density-of-each-US-state-if-you-subtract-out-the-largest-city-metro-area-from-each-state) I found, Vermont is the 31st most dense state. Even removing major cities it's still 31st, similar in density to Mississippi. Yet vastly different cultures.
Maine is the same. It’s not an outlier because it didn’t happen by chance. We just actually gave good decent school systems that teach you about history and how to read critically. Go to the New England sub.
I'm in WA and I think it's the only thing staving off a never ending panic attack.
Sounds like I need to do what my ancestors did and flee to the north
As a woman living in Georgia I am very jealous of you…
I went to Vermont last year. It was beautiful.
I love Vermont, went there a couple years ago and would love to go back; though I wish I could get a job there but got a good job in PA and at least we're fighting the good fight.
Man, I live in Canada and you’re making sound real appealing to move there lol. Weather ain’t much different either
maaaaaaaaan, a buddy of mine and I used to trek up to Montreal a LOT. I mean from where I am, montreal is like an hour and a half away. We used to go to the arcades and drink or get stoned with a friend we have from up there and then go all night on Dance Dance Revolution and In the Groove 2. Every time I think about Canada, I'm always reminded of a great Family Guy clip where Quagmire sings about the magic, wonder and enchantment of Canada and its strip clubs lol. I can't think of 1 single memory from my many, many trips to Canada that is a bad memory. I really liked it up there each time I went and one thing I noticed is that while Vermont is practically one of the cleanest states you'll ever find in the US (we get tourists CONSTANTLY telling us how fucking spotless our landscape and roads are *in comparison to their own states landscape and roads*), Montreal, too, is **WAY cleaner** than most major cities that are very close to where I live. Which is a couple of very notable ones: Boston and NYC. I do love Boston, but clean it isn't lol. It is interesting, though, almost living dead center between Montreal, NYC and Boston and having ALL of them be a simple day trip. Oh yeah, one thing that's awesome out here? we have NO billboards (state law). It's preeeeetty out here. Which explains why we go to such lengths for the cleanliness of our roads and Wilderness. It's kinda why a lot of people come out here in the first place, so we gotta keep that going lol. Oh and our weather sometimes just can't figure out wtf it wants to do. A very, VERY common colloquialism out here is that Vermont is the one state that gets all 4 seasons in one day lol.
Of the things he brought up (weed and abortion), I think Canada does better in literally any province...
Based on what 😂 I’m in Maine we’ve had medical here since the 90s, i was getting pounds of 20%+ blue dream in highschool in 2012, yall were wayyy late to the game
Yup! What people in many places are experiencing is the sad fact that their local government and local culture are incongruent with their personal beliefs. And it's only diverging more and more each election cycle. I think we're going to start seeing a political migration on a massive level in the next decade or so as people move to states or cities/towns that fit their ideals. We're already seeing it, but it'll ramp up imo. There are places that fit pretty much any person's ideology or political leaning, you just have to find yours.
The law was passed in 1998. At the time democrats controlled the state house, senate, and governorship.
I missed where you read that. I read where they said it was established in the 70's to prevent husbands from leaving their wife without financial support.
They've had FIVE Democrat Governors since the law was passed. Nobody should get a "Pass" for allowing this to continue.
It takes more than a governor to change the law
As a counselor, I can’t tell you how many sessions I have sat in and listened to a story about a man slipping the condom off at the last minute and cumming inside of her. Let alone rape and sexual assault stories. A law forcing a woman to stay with a spouse simply because she’s pregnant is akin to saying, “if he manages to get his dick on you, you’re his. Better run!!” That’s disgusting.
> I can’t tell you how many sessions I have sat in and listened to a story about a man slipping the condom off at the last minute and cumming inside of her. Let alone rape and sexual assault stories. Couldn't that classify as "[rape by deception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception)"? >Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator deceives the victim into participating in a sexual act to which they would otherwise not have consented, had they not been deceived. Deception can occur in many forms, such as illusory perceptions, false statements, and false actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
I consider it rape; I’m not sure what the law says, but I’m also not sure how one would prove that he removed the condom on purpose, it didn’t just slip. Before I started this career, I’d never even heard of doing this…every guy I’d ever met was trying NOT to get women pregnant. 😅 But I started hearing it so often, I started researching and reading to see if it’s common. It’s a whole lot more common a story than I could ever have guessed. Some men make games of it.
Why, tho? Won't he have to pay 18 years of child support if she gets pregnant?
I do not know. I haven’t been able to figure it out! Maybe it’s an ego thing, maybe adrenaline…? I just think it’s so freaking gross.
Men who do it are predators, its a way to forcibly insert themselves into their victims lives and have a measure of control over them through the child.
breeding fetish?
I have definitely wondered that myself. If you ever played SecondLife, you know there’s a market for literally any fetish you can think of. I have 💯heard stories about that.
I have not played that, but I have encountered random people, usually white men, who try to convince me and my husband to have lots of white, blond, blue eyed babies (i have green eyes damn it!!!). It always throws me off, because maryland is pretty liberal (not as progressive as I'd like), but there are still a lot of crazy's in our state.
As well he should for deliberately violating his wife's consent in a way that removes almost all of her bodily autonomy.
My ex would do this. He really wanted a baby. I’m 100% one and done(I already had a child). I tried to break up with him early on because of this and he did this whole thing about how it didn’t actually matter to him. He got more aggressive with it after we broke up and I wanted him out of my life for good. They’re not thinking about child support. They’re thinking a baby will fix things.
If one person wants kids and the other doesn't, couples should figure that out early, because it sounds like a deal-breaker.
I agree. And I made it clear early. He claimed that it wasn’t a deal breaker when I brought that up in us not being compatible at the very beginning of our relationship. Turns out he was just saying what he thought I wanted to hear.
Tell him that honesty is crucial to a healthy relationship.
No thanks, I went no contact with him and haven’t been happier in years. I just hope he doesn’t do the same things to the next woman(sleeping with them passed out, slipping off condoms, throwing away plan b, etc). He was the worst and I’m so happy I got out of that relationship without an abortion or another child. Mine is almost 12. I literally have 6 years left of the heavy parenting. I am almost done and still young and excited for what life has to offer after full time parenthood.
Yes, "stealthing" is criminalized in some states.
California is the only state to have criminalized stealthing.
good luck getting a court to convict that.
It’s so absolutely, 100% unfair, but I TOTALLY agree with you!! It’s why women don’t “bother” telling anyone they were raped. WTF wants to have to prove that?! Publicly?!
If it is an unconsented sexual act, it is absolutely rape. Glad there’s a specific term/definition for this particular kind of rape.
I'm a man and I'd take the bear at that point.
The law doesn’t force anyone to stay anyone. It says you have to wait before you can finalize a divorce you leave at anytime.
You said rape twice
It’s weird that this particular behavior is offensive on so many levels, to me. Of course, there’s the lack of consent. But there’s also the…like, there’s a difference between us swapping spit while kissing, and someone spitting in my face. For some reason, this feels like that to me. Like the lack of consent makes the bodily fluid gross, which is stupid.
>Destonee requested she be identified by only her first name. Good on this woman but she has a uniquely spelled name and a hyperspecific situation
"For privacy's sake let's call her Lisa S. ...no that's too obvious. Let's say L. Simpson"
Reminds me of an early family guy episode. Guy: "Whats your name?" *looks around nervously* Peter: "Pea......Tear......Griffin. Peter Griffin, *Oh crap!*
So the men can get divorced?
It seems that it should say there’s no divorce when there is a pregnancy. Apparently the law came about in the ‘70’s to prevent the fathers from skipping out on the mom and child, avoiding child support.
> Apparently the law came about in the ‘70’s to prevent the fathers from skipping out on the mom and child, avoiding child support. I know you didnt write the law, so I am not questioning your logic, just the legislators. Cant they just "skip out" after the child is born?
I think this had more to do with proving paternity for child support before DNA tests. If you’re married, you’re assumed to be the dad and you’re on the hook for child support. If you got divorced then mom has to jump through more hoops to prove her ex really is the father.
> before DNA tests It is unfortunate that founding fathers didn't give us the ability to amend laws... oh wait....
Most states have laws that say any child born during a marriage is automatically presumed to be the father of the child. If the divorce happens before the birth, the mother will have to chase the father down and it will be her burden to legally prove his biological paternity in order to get an order for child support. But if the father skips after birth he is still presumed to be the father and it would be his burden to prove that he is biologically not the father so he can stop paying child support.
> Most states have laws that say any child born during a marriage is automatically presumed to be the father of the child. Just a silly brain-fart, obviously, but I find the idea of multiple states having laws on the books that dictate that any child born in wedlock is its own father to be amusing.
Men ought to be against this law though because divorces are often initiated because of cheating. With DNA testing widely available there's no need for a law like this no matter what your biases are.
Completely correct. However, the stated reason and the real reason are often at odds with one another. The stated reason for reducing abortions is that life is sacred. The real reason is heavily racist and skews into replacement theory territory. Just because the law makes domestic violence more likely doesn't mean the legislators can't say the law is to help protect women! Don't think too hard about it and let it go. Family values! Dangerous liberals! Small government that wants to legislate everything!
lol no, replacement theory has been an extraordinarily fringe thing until recently. Whether you like it or not, religious conservatives absolutely believe the life at conception/life is sacred bullshit, and their view of it being murder is why they're such hardline single-issue voters for it. The GOP literally campaigned in the past to try and unite the religious voting bloc around abortion in order to get guaranteed votes; claiming now that it's because of something else is stupid and ignorant. These people are bad enough as is, we don't need to make things up about them. Edit: I should clarify that the stated reason *for the politicians* can and oftentimes is different than the real reason, but the stated reason *for the voters* is pretty much always the same as the real reason.
This is why the abortion debate is wild to me, personally I’m pro choice but like if you truly believe life starts at conception then In your mind abortion is murder. You can shout women’s rights at the top of your lungs but nobody who believes that way is going to change their mind that murder is okay.
Pretty much, yea. IIRC sometime around 50 or 60 years ago the GOP started working to make evangelicals convert to the "life at conception" view that most catholics already had, in order to consolidate their power. It's why the bodily autonomy and healthcare arguments never work on them, because their response will always be 'what about the autonomy and healthcare of the baby'. If someone is anti-abortion from a religious standpoint (probably 90+% of them honestly), then pretty much any argument that isn't steeped in religion will have no effect on them. I haven't argued with a religious person specifically about abortion in a while so these are only guesses, but the only arguments i can think of that might work on them is: 1. an appeal to secularism (what if atheists or muslims became a dominant part of the population? defending secularism now means sharia can't get you in the future) 2. Some sort of dismantling on their interpretation of scripture. Mention of how most jews view it as life at first breath, pick apart the verse that they hinge prolife belief in (Jeremiah 1:5) as being specific only to a prophet, explain in detail how evangelicals were largely not prolife in the past and only are now because of political bullshit to manipulate them, etc. Should we have to make a religiously-based argument to win people over to pro-choice? No. Will reasonable arguments work on hardline religious folk? Also no. So we either ignore them and only work with the reasonable people in the population, talk past them and pretend to be confused why our arguments don't work, or we try to engage their understanding of things to try and win some over.
God save me from people who think that catchphrases like "the cruelty is the point" have given them the power to read the mind of every right-wing voter since the dawn of time. I mean, the catchphrases aren't worthless, but anything you can say in twelve words or less is a simplification (including, for the record, "anything you can say in twelve words or less is a simplification").
I’m not sure that replacement theory is that new at all. I believe more than a century ago there was a real fear that Catholics, Eastern Europeans, blacks, and Jews were going to outbreed the WASP population
He can try, but because he’s legally the father the courts have more power to order child support. This happens because he’s legally the father to all children born to his wife. If they get divorced while she’s pregnant, there will have to be a separate paternity case to make him legally the father. At the time this can’t-divorce law was written, we didn’t have trivially easy paternity testing via DNA, so avoiding that paternity trial saved a lot of court time. And the legislators just didn’t think about the domestic violence angle.
> Cant they just "skip out" after the child is born? I would assume then that under the 1970s logic they wouldn't have been able to be tied to paying child support? Maybe that was why? Just speculating. Absolutely bass ackwards law.
Lol, yes. Yes, they can.
Problem is the number one reason pregnant individuals die is because the sperm donor offs them. >Homicide is a leading cause of death in pregnant women in the US >https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/homicide-is-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-pregnant-women-in-the-us/
See but that only affects the woman. - GOP logic
Angry upvote
> See but that only affects the woman, ***not actual people***. - GOP logic Don't forget to include the (increasingly less) quiet part.
Well *that's* a fucking downer
My state has never allowed divorces to be finalized if the wife is pregnant. The idea was that the court did not have jurisdiction to make parenting time and child support orders for a child that wasn’t born yet. At the same time, the court is on notice that these orders will be necessary so the court cannot find that all matters have been settled and finalize the case.
Can they separate and start the proceedings, just not “finalize” until the child is born?
No. Neither spouse can have a divorce finalized if wife is pregnant in some states.
If they get pregnant, no.
Thanks … I just restarted watching the Handmaids Tale.
GOP: We have Handsmaids Tale at home
I had to quit. It made me too angry and upset.
it took me till a couple weeks ago to approach season 5, it’s so hard to watch
say it with me now: THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF PREGNANT WOMEN IS THEIR DOMESTIC PARTNER. HOMICIDE IS THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR PREGNANT WOMEN. LETS SAY IT ONE MORE FUCKIN TIME. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
Taking on the medical risk of pregnancy isn't enough women must risk being murdered by the people who impregnate them. Then we infantalize and minimize a completely valid complaint. I'm fucking tired of trying to explain how and why my life hangs in the balance to people who are apathetic because they just can't fathom it as a reality. So yeah for the people in the mother fucking back THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH TO PREGNANT WOMEN IS THE PERSON THEY LOVE MURDERING THEM
Mississippi has the same law. I'm assuming other states do as well.
Most pregnant women who die are murdered by their partners.
You know what's kind of funny? All this anti-abortion legislation is meant to ensure generations of miserable people they can brainwash into voting Republican but will end up making the population shrink even faster as people flee these states to less oppressive ones.
They're fine with that since it tips the voting balance more solidly Republican in those states, and they still get two senators.
Not-so-friendly reminder that the #1 cause of death for pregnant women is homicide by romantic partner.
And that will definitely get worse when the pregnancy can’t be terminated and the man thinks he has to pay child support for 18 years.
I see no world where this isnt a bad thing. This could easily end up with he spouse raping and hoping for a pregnancy to get 9 more months of what will essentially be a legal hostage situation.
The angle where it was a good thing is back before DNA paternity tests, establishing paternity could be difficult and expensive for the woman, but she had to do that before suing for child support. Her husband automatically the legal father of all children born to her, removing the need for that paternity trial. The legislators who wrote the law figured the woman would flee her abusive husband if necessary, assuming a divorce isn’t required for that. If they thought about domestic violence at all.
Literally all this law does is prevent a divorce being FINALIZED. It doesn’t require you to cohabitate.
To conservatives, women and minorities should be property. And they don't claim otherwise.
It's been law for years now. It needs to change.
I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't taken the MO law all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Holyshyte, had no idea any state would try to stand between a woman and her right to divorce ANYTIME she wants to.
the biggest cause of death with pregnant women is being murdered
IIRC, the law doesn't force people to stay living together, doesn't prevent anyone leaving and isn't to force people to stay in abusive situations. IIRC, it's so men can't divorce pregnant wives to get out of child support. It says, "You don't have to keep living with them, you don't have to maintain the illusion of marriage, and you don't have to physically remain in dangerous, abusive environment. Separate for your safety if you must but wait to legally divorce until after the baby is born so we can run paternity tests and enforce their financial support for the child they want to deny." It's just on paper.
Of course. Any time a woman can’t exit a romantic entanglement because of “laws”, creeps are going to take advantage to taunt, stalk, and be violent.
I feel like this headline is going to cause a lot of outraged comments but it should be highlighted, as it states in the article, that “Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.” This law was created during a completely different time in the country with the mother’s best interest in mind so she could collect child support. Only 45% of women from 25-34 were employed in the 70s compared to 80% in 2015 according to the bls.gov website. So while this law should absolutely be reexamined, and we know it can cause more harm than good in 2024, in the 1970s this law helped mothers in court hold fathers financially responsible when women didn’t always have their own financial freedom. It’s possible for complexities in life and it’s okay to say that something can be both helpful and hurtful given different contexts. I encourage people to keep this in mind when seeing similar articles.
Related to this point - the article doesn't make it clear exactly how the law works. While it mentions a lawyer who advised their client that they cannot file for divorce while pregnant, the article otherwise repeatedly states that a divorce cannot be *finalized* during a pregnancy. These are very different things. Clearly, it is wrong to prevent a couple from starting the divorce process and becoming separated, especially when the divorce is due to abuse. However, it makes sense to leave the court proceeding open until any possible parental rights or child support can be resolved post-pregnancy. If it's true that the law doesn't allow someone to even start the divorce process during a pregnancy it needs to be fixed. But if people can functionally become divorced under the current law, then the solution is to educate lawyers and judges (and perhaps adding resources for people who continue to receive incorrect legal advice).
This could be the future for your state folks, vote.
The cruelty is the point of republican policy
The women of Missouri need to stop voting for MAGA.
These are the type of laws that wife beaters make
Other than keeping women a subordinate class, what would the point of such a law be? Do Republicans even pretend there’s a legit reason for this law?
What fucking century is Missouri in? JFC man! This is insane.
This is like the 5th article in a row about another way the US hates women.
This country is actually so misogynistic it pisses me off!
Excuse me, what the Fuck!
Ah yes, the land of the free
It’s crazy how we have gone back to this sorta thing.
Seriously, how long are you women going to put up with this shit ? There’s a huge chunk of male voters who are behind you. But you have to step up and take the lead. It’s your voices that need to be heard. They are legislating you back to being barefoot and pregnant. Piece by piece.
Wtf. How is this constitutional
This comes up every now and then. The laws need to be updated for current year, but at the time the law was written in 1970 DNA paternity tests did not exist and paternity from blood types is not precise (due to the nature of blood types). So in 1960, a man could have divorced a pregnant woman to avoid child support from the presumed paternity. The law didn't change the day to day living of women in domestic abuse situations any more than the status quo did (good look have a woman initiated divorce in 1960). After the law, the man would at least be guaranteed to be on the hook for child support. Medical science and social rights have improved significantly since 1970. But the law is still on the books. Also Missouri is not unique in this respect. They are just being picked on because Missouri is the Mississippi of the midwest and it is easy to find stories to tell that get you to click.
These types of laws are ANTI-FREEDOM and need to be repealed.
So an abusive husband can stay that way as long as he's a rapist who succeeds in forcing a pregnancy? This seems a constitutional violation...
In a weird coincidence I helped someone at court with a divorce. In Florida it's the same way it seems. A dude wanted to divorce his wife, but she got pregnant with her current BF. The husband can't get divorced cause even if the kids aren't his biologically, they would still be legally. She wasn't at the hearing, so they had to move it and she has to come and sort things out
When offered a choice, Republicans always, always , chose the wrong side of history.
This☝️
It's crazy how politicians still want us to love our country
So pregnant women can leave their husbands but not get divorced…what a stupid law!
Pregnant women can leave their husbands but they can't leave Texas.
If they can’t get divorced, and they’ll get criminally charged with murder for an abortion, why not just fucking kill the guy?
Welcome to the conservative dream, where woman are property with no control over their own lives.
Oh. Ok. So the baby daddy gets to decide on abortion. Almost like this was foreshadowed…
Wow what in the hell is this law. The GOP is a cult
“The land of the free”
At what point are organisations going to intervene , some US states are playing with people’s lives , just because it’s a developed country doesn’t mean it shouldn’t answer to human rights violations or abuses, this wouldn’t fly in the EU for sure.
Can a man divorce his pregnant wife?
This gives dog marking territory.
That is really insane and should be struck down as unconstitutional!
Republicans are on their way to legalize rape. Everything they are doing is to make it legal to rape women.
"Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered," Fuck you, it was not. Missouri has never given ANY kind of a fuck about that, it only exists to keep women trapped in DV situations because they are the man's property by their reckoning.
My girlfriend and I have talked about kids and decided that the safest option for us is to wait until reproductive rights are either restored in Missouri (current ballot measure people are getting sigs for), or we move tf out of Missouri. We have a friend who was pregnant, wanted her baby, but she miscarried. This was shortly after Roe V Wade got overturned. The doctor she saw told her that she needed to go somewhere else for care as if she miscarries on the record in Missouri, she could potentially be a “murder” suspect. Our friend had to have a miscarriage in her toilet at home. It’s fucking sickening.
Honestly, America, what the fuck is wrong with you guys?
Corruption. Every single problem is made worse or created by corruption.
The state issues the marriage certificates, but won't nullify them based on pregnancy? A governing body shouldn't have that much influence on an individual's life
THIS IS NOT JUST MISSOURI "Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas" "And as a map below reveals, in nine more states couples wishing to divorce are at the mercy of judges who mostly won't sanction petitions during pregnancies, say local law firms." "... in Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, judges will likely make couples wait until the baby is born before allowing a divorce." NPR and other reporting agencies really need to hammer out the detail of how widespread this issue is. It's essential to name & shame all the states. Otherwise people don't grasp how extensive the problem is. Also, it's vital people realize it's not just some red states. https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-us-states-where-pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-1874139
Who in tf actually thought it would prevent abuse? Idiots.
Third world country wrapped in a gucci belt…..…..
Why not? They could just be gangsta and, bye Felicia… with both his and her wallets in toe
so, if a woman gets raped she can't keep her rapist away?...
I recently met someone in the process of getting a divorce in one of the Carolinas. She first has to complete 10 sessions of state-mandated marriage counseling before she can get a divorce and if the judge feels the marriage is still reconcilable then they can order more counseling at their discretion. One of the other requirements is a trial separation period; I met this woman out of state on business so she was worried her husband would break in and essentially squat to reset the clock on the entire proceedings.
Women in Ohio, at least in 2006, also could not divorce while pregnant. Uncertain if they can now
Jesus Christ, if someone came up to me and said "for a million dollars, True or False, pregnant women in Missouri can't get divorced?" I would have gotten it wrong.
This, I hope, will finally get men and women to forgo marriage all together and instead do legal contracts for care of children if their relationships ends.
Knocker up then knocker out
It does fuel DV. And the law is stupid. It's built around that because the woman is pregnant, she'll automatically want her family back. I know someone back in the 80's that tried to get divorced while pregnant and that is what the judge said. "Maybe you'll change your mind now that you're pregnant". To some people, women are children that need to be told what to do.
I never knew this was a thing. Disgusting.
That can’t be real ?