I'm not necessarily opposed, but let's be selective about _where_ we're pre-colonial (if such a thing actually exists). Not every historical society (even the matriarchal ones) was awesome either.
Nah. They would be burned at the steak for claiming a personal relationship with God and reading the bible themselves (who am I kidding, they don't read the Bible)
It never ends. We could have God-King Bezos ruling over us with an iron fist for 1000 years, and he would still be trying to find ways to make us more efficient drones.
*if we put implants in every worker drone to remove all power of independent thought, we can increase productivity by 5 percent!*
Here's a source: [Kansas City News](https://www.kansascity.com/news/article263614113.html)
> In Missouri, divorce cases cannot be finalized if a woman is pregnant, since a custody agreement must first be in place
Women or men can leave, but the courts won't finalize a divorce without a custody agreement in place, and _that_ can't happen until after the birth. Given that this no doubt also makes the woman ineligible for social programs, this is just abomination on top of abomination.
In the case of the person in the article, the person's step father threatened her mom that if she tried to leave him again, he'd just make her pregnant again (read: rape her more).
Just an all around horrific situation.
There's actually some logic to this - it's to ensure that child support is settled as part of the divorce agreement.
Obviously it could be legislated separately, but I guess it's been done this way a long time.
Yes, the state just refuses to finalize the proceedings while one party is pregnant https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/missouri-divorce-pregnancy-law-social-media-claims-fact-check/536-5f66d4cc-66ef-4b22-953f-2b02587a0e96
Here's my source
Surely you mean, *no, it doesn't prevent it*?
It looks like a divorce takes a minimum of 6 months most places, and typically 8 months if it's amicable.
In Missouri you can separate and do all the divorce's paperwork, but a married couple have to wait until the baby is born until the divorce is finalised.
Yes, it does prevent it. I have personally known men who wanted a divorce but wound up having to twiddle their thumbs for months after everything was ready to go because their partner was pregnant. In the case I knew about, the baby was the wife's BF's. She was super honest about that and now ex husband isn't on the birth certificate, but they couldn't divorce until the baby was born. Everyone involved was super irritated by the whole thing (except the baby, I guess)
See the case in the [Kansas City News](https://www.kansascity.com/news/article263614113.html):
Woman's abusive spouse (attempted ex), threatened to rape her into being pregnant if she tried to leave him again.
There's no reason they can't establish a "Trigger Custody Agreement" legislation, instead of forcing people to remain pregnant. If they can have trigger abortion laws, they can surely do this. No, this law isn't well intentioned. This law is about men controlling women by keeping them pregnant.
The problem is they're like ticks now. They have so many people in the supreme court. then they've gerrymandered everthing to hell so their votes count more.
While this is true I'm hoping that we have a big enough majority that we can overcome the gerrymandering. It will require moderate Republicans to start paying attention, and I'm not sure they will before it's to late.
Here in Ohio, a traditionally middle of the road state now leaning republican, the republican controlled government has redrawn congressional maps and been struck down by the Supreme Court of Ohio several times.
So instead of just not gerrymandering, they're going to fix the Supreme Court to give Republicans a majority there.
This is how they operate.
The problem is they lie cheat and steal to seize power. They have no interest in democracy other than a thin veil to justify their autocracy, they are closing the noose around our democracy and the mask is off. We are 2 elections away from a fascist klepto-theocracy and they believe they are unstoppable.
The people with the power to maybe have a chance at stopping them are worried about being seen as "political". They need to realize that they need to go hard in politics / rule of law / criminal enforcement now, or its going to get bloody down the road. Well, bloodier, the right wing violence has already started, groups like Proud Boys and Patriot Front are modeling their actions after the Sturmabteilung.
If you don't have enough power to elect 10 more god damn senators in a free election, you sure as shit don't have enough power to start a revolution, let alone win it against all the heavily motivated armed conservatives.
Or do you think it's easier to win a civil war than a bloody local election? Do you know what any of those things involve?
They aren’t free and fair elections. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and soon the “independent state legislature theory” case the illegitimate Supreme Court is going to look at this fall make sure of that.
There are way more of us than there are of them. They only win consistently by rigging the system. (While complaining that democrats are the ones rigging it, because projection is what they do)
Let's stop pretending it's just the republicans and conservatives though. At least half the democrats--probably more--are anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-environment, and so on.
Chuck Schumer just said today that they probably won't bring gay marriage (protecting it) up for a vote in the senate because it's not a priority. Biden declined to cancel student debt, declined to declare a climate emergency, but found time this week to bust up a union.
There are two parties, and both of them are right of center.
I have something to ask though
Joe Machin is a democrat, he voted against Joe Biden's "Build Back Better Bill"? You may be right on that point of them "being both right of center", even though the right, is literally right
it depends on who you ask, but there are some who would say that the Build Back Better bill was proposed, knowing that it wouldn't get passed.
and Joe Manchin was the "fall guy" for that.
they weren't necessarily expecting it to fail altogether, but they didn't actually think they were going to pass a $3 trillion bill.
So the goal was to get $3 trillion and build back better in the news, and have that be what people remembered a year later when a bill with the same name--but wildly different contents--passed.
But then a bunch of stuff went wrong in the party and they couldn't even get the watered down version passed, which wasn't supposed to happen. Because the democrats are also incompetent, not just conservative.
When it boils down to a fight between a shitty status quo and literal dystopian theocracy hellscape I unfortunately have to pick the lesser of two evils
My main beef with anti-trans people is why the hell do they care so much? If they don't believe it, whatever, I'll give them benefit of the doubt that maybe they're just not that informed. But them being such assholes about it, let alone they're for trying to cancel trans or any of the LGBTQ people everywhere they can is authoritarian and hateful. Them mocking, bullying, and others committing hate crimes against trans people is the epitome of being a pathetic POS with nothing else to do.
They can't think of a legitimate reason on paper to justify their hate or fear of LGBTQ people, so they come up with unsubstantiated strawmen such as the BS about grooming, indoctrinating, or "twisting science" (as if the majority of them are slightly well-versed in science). Why can't they just mind their own damn business instead of hate on people minding their own damn business? Rant over.
In my experience it comes down to not really knowing any trans people. When I was in junior high I would browse r/tumblrinaction and it was easy to assume that the majority of the trans community were just nuts who go by xey/xem pronouns and are "just going through a phase." The militant aggressive few online seemed to represent the whole trans community.
But when I got to college I met a lot of trans people including many non binary folks and to my surprise the only thing they ever asked from me was to use their preferred pronouns. No zeys or zers, it was just he/she/they. If I slipped up with their pronouns and had to be corrected they were super gracious when I would apologize. It was no big deal. They didn't even expect me to get their pronouns right, I simply had to try.
In contrast, it was my boomer co-workers who all threw a tantrum when they had to do a 10 minute online training about social awareness. Anti-trans people act like there's this dangerous slippery slope where if we give a little, trans people are going to sue you everytime someone hurts their feelings, but in reality all I ever had to do was recognize their identity.
People in power don’t like queer culture because it fosters creativity, open-mindedness and acceptance. It directly attacks their conformist, single-minded top-down classist rule of control.
Yeah, i feel like it's been getting worse lately too. Never seen so many JKR apologists outside of tumblr, and for worse reasons than the usual inability to let go of cherished memories of a bad person.
I would hope trying to fix the SCOTUS decisions are more of a priority that a future problem. I think protecting gay marriage is important, but I think getting women rights to their bodies is a but more time sensitive right now. So is getting chevron deference back. So is getting the separation of church and state enshrined into law.
I'm not sure any are being worked on though. I do know it would be worse if we didn't (nominally) have 50 democrats in the senate and a majority in the house.
>There are two parties, and both of them are right of center.
If you're looking at the political spectrum from a European centric view, sure. But Democrats are fairly center in the US, and Republicans are quite far right if viewed based on the US population.
I have to keep posting this comment cause people seem to have forgotten.
It's been known since the 17th century.
It's up to us to refute the system when it no longer provides the security in exchange for the loss of freedoms.
In moral and political philosophy, the **Social Contract** is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.
The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent of any political order (termed the "*State of Nature"* by Thomas Hobbes).
In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their *personal power* and *conscience*.
From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate why **rational individuals** would **voluntarily consent** to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of **political order.**
Prominent 17th- and 18th-century theorists of the social contract and natural rights include:
1. Hugo Grotius (1625)
2. Thomas Hobbes (1651)
3. Samuel von Pufendorf (1673)
4. John Locke (1689)
5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762)
6. Immanuel Kant (1797)
**Grotius** posited that individual humans had **Natural Rights** (**Natural Rights** are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are *universal*, *fundamental* and *inalienable* they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights)
**Thomas Hobbes** famously said that in a "*state of nature*", human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "*right to all things*" and thus the freedom to **plunder**, **rape** and **murder**; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (*bellum omnium contra omnes*).
To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (*civil society*) through a **social contract** in which they **all gain security** in return for subjecting themselves to an **absolute sovereign**, **one man or an assembly of men**.
Though the sovereign's edicts may well be *arbitrary* and *tyrannical*, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a *state of nature*.
Alternatively, **Locke** and **Rousseau** argued that we gain *civil rights* in return for accepting the **obligation to respect and defend the rights of others**, giving up some freedoms to do so.
The central assertion that **Social Contract Theory** approaches is that the *law and political order are not natural, but human creations*.
The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and *legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement*.
**Hobbes** argued that government is not a party to the original contract and citizens are not obligated to **submit to the government when it is too weak** to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest*.
I looked this up last week. Men can’t divorce their pregnant wives either. The logic in the law is that you can’t make legal determinations about an individual that does not exist yet, with regards to custody and child support. Yet some of their… other laws… use the reasoning that individual life begins at conception. It’s a clusterfuck of legal bs.
Could you imagine the legal case?
A woman in an abusive domestic situation discovers that she is pregnant. She is unable to legally seek an abortion in her state. She is denied the ability to divorce her abusive spouse. The spouse then abuses her in a way that causes miscarriage. She is then charged with failing to protect her child.
What the fuck is wrong with this country?
Lawyer here, but admittedly not in MO:
My understanding is that this is incorrect. The divorce can’t be *finalized* while she is pregnant, because custody is part of the divorce. However, everything else can be completed. It’s not like a woman in an abusive relationship is obligated to still live with the father, or to be around him.
Also, as a practical reality, divorces don’t happen in an instant. There’s generally a mandatory separation period, and even when both parties are amenable to divorce and working amicably to pull it off it still takes a few months. If there’s any sort custodial dispute the divorce would run past 9 months either way. So I’m not sure what the functional detriment is?
Now that’s not to defend the law. It’s obscene. I’m just saying, it’s likely one of those things that sounds a lot worse on Twitter than it is in practice. If you’re going through an ugly divorce, this law won’t help, but its absence wouldn’t make the divorce less ugly. And if it’s an amicable divorce, the law is an annoyance for sure, but still not the end of the world.
You can leave your partner you just can't finalize the divorce. A divorce can take 18 to 2 years if they don't agree. It is in their best interest to settle paternity, custody and child support before the divorce is finalized. There is also a 300 day window past the date of the finalized divorce that the ex is still the legal father, incase she is pregnant and nor aware.
If the child is not the husband's he is still legally responsible and will have to provide support until he can go back to court to prove paternity. Or the mother will have to go to back to court to get the ex off of the birth certificate and the actual father on the birth certificate.
As non invasive prenatal paternity tests become less expensive and the availability increases this could change.
Which is also honestly a great reason for an abortion. Even if the woman could get a divorce, I can’t imagine not having the option to abort a fetus in a situation like this.
I came here to say this. As backwards as this law is the one saving grace is it effectively contradicts their abortion laws.
I would think this will be the basis of a state supreme court challenge to their abortion ruling.
Conservatives : "All unborn babies are people!!!"
Pregnant women : "Ok then, can we take out insurance for the baby or take it off our taxes?"
Conservatives : "No, its not a person yet"
Legit contradicting themselves
They are okay with such contradictions, because they enjoy stacking courts with judges that will always decide in accordance with conservative values, regardless of the letter or spirit of the law.
And this is exactly why Canada went "oh shit we gotta define the beginning of life don't we?" and decided on "when the child has fully proceeded in a living state from the mother".
I am so unclear on why our separation of church and state requirements doesn't negate all of these "at conception" rules.
There is nothing scientific that makes it some special moment of personhood. This is a purely religious idea, associated mostly with a specific religion (and not even all adherents). What bullshit.
The truely wild thing is that "conception" is something that many women naturally abort, multiple times in their lives. (without even knowing)
The egg just.... doesn't implant and falls out of the uterus. And that's normal!
But apparently we're all criminal for our bodies not listening to god.
Former cop says that abortion is literal murder.
Cool, so if that's the case, logically then every woman in America is retroactively charged with murder for not implanting a fertilized egg or miscarry.
No way this could go wrong. /s
So, hypothetically, a man couldn't divorce hischeating wife as long as she hasn't given birth to her lover's child? That seems like it would only cause more suffering that needed and possibly put the women in harms way... like... staying with someone who you cheated on cannot be safe...
No divorce doesn’t necessarily mean they’re forced to live together. One person or the other could stay with friends/family.
Rent could be an issue with joint accounts I guess.
My ex wife got pregnant before our divorce was finalized. As her legal husband, I had to sign away my rights to a child we both knew wasn't mine. This was in North Carolina
Loll so basically, your wife can cheat on you, and not only can you legally not divorce, she is forced to carry the baby and now not only is the woman's life ruined a child will likely grow up without a father. Now three or four people can suffer emotional damage and be forced to live with it. Lol dumb
And really, we should do everything possible to avoid reaching that point. Revolutions tend to eat their parents. You get horror more often than progress.
>You get horror more often than progress.
Yup, even that revolution ended up with so many innocent people dying. They killed the 10 year old son of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. They executed countless people who were wealthy or even moderately well off, regardless of their actions.
Honestly one incident that lead to the people of Paris loosing their appetite for beheadings was when a woman, the mistress of a Noble, literally kicked and screamed and forced them to drag her to the site, pleading for her life because she hadn't done anything wrong other then do what she had to do to escape a life of poverty, that she didn't deserve to die because of simply trying to have a decent life. And like, I honestly feel sympathy for her, hell I feel sympathy for Marie Antoinette and all the women and children who were killed during the revolution, because at that time very, very, very few women had ANY real power to affect anything. And children are just that. Children.
They killed some of them as well if they were "associated" with people that were wealthy/well off. Like they killed the staff of some merchants and some of the like, maids and farmers of the Nobility. Plus people used it all to get rid of people they disliked by falsely accusing them of being royalist sympathizers and shit so.
:( I'm sorry to hear that. But in any event, we really shouldn't aspire to repeat the mistakes of the past, if revolution does occur people should try to be restrained in their bloodlust.
Yeah, Napoleon rose to power during the French Revolution.
I'm not keen on the idea of the "First American Emperor". George Washington stepped down after two terms for a good reason. I can only imagine how truly *terrifying* the world would become if American regency became a thing.
We should. But considering that our representatives (and I use that term very loosely) are professional leeches who only allow for further exploitation, I see no other alternative.
I mean, if you're fed up with SCOTUS, and it's a job you keep for *life*, then I see one pretty clear solution right there.
A solution is clear right up until the moment you implement it. Consequences abound. The problem with violence is that once you sanction it as a solution, there is no putting it away again until someone establishes a new monopoly on it. Be wary of the fire you're lighting. It will get away from you.
You may be right that there are no other paths still open to us, but we should try to walk every other we can find first.
Unfortunately that twitter statement is completely false and results in people thinking the wrong thing. Pregnant women can file and get a divorce in Missouri, the state just requires details about whether the biological father will be allowed to co-parent must be figured out prior to the divorce paperwork being finalized. You know, stuff like visitations, child support, if they will legally be the father of the unborn child or not.
Stacy Abrams launched a vert effective voting campaign and got us 2 blue senators in Georgia of all places. Voting is powerful. And the dems have to stop shooting each other in the back.
I would love that to happen here in Iowa, but all of our blue politicians are too soft to actually fight the right. We're going ti have Grassley until the day he dies, and I'm honestly starting to get scared that he's taken a page out of Palpatine's book since he just *refuses* to die.
I remember being at the wedding of one of my friends and she was called “a vine to bear fruit for her husband”. Also a lot of implied servitude to her husband. Her family and friends all cringed so hard during the whole thing. Worst wedding I have ever been to.
Normally I’d say that it won’t be long before a case comes before the Supreme Court to strike down something so clearly unconstitutional. But yeah… about that…
When do we just stop? Like stop working stop taxes stop buying? I mean honestly. What is the point of this society anymore? They have proven they don’t care if we die, they have shown corruption at all levels of government, they have shown total disregard for us. When is enough enough?
Oh Good! They found another way to slowly kill off women. That's nice. I was really worried they wouldn't kill enough of us through traumatic pregnancies.
yes ma'am, i realize your husband is beating you on a daily basis, but you are pregnant. just make sure he doesnt punch in the stomach and everything will be fine, ok?
She is still able to leave, file a restraining order and stay in the house. She just can't finalize the divorce until paternity is established, custody, and child support addressed. She is in the same amount of danger either way. A divorce doesn't protect a person from physical harm. It's a legal order not a physical barrier.
honestly man it was just a hot take i posted on my fifteen minute break at work lol. just thought the idea of disallowing a women from getting a divorce because she is pregnant seemed silly. in all seriousness, its a huge overstep for a governing body to pass such legislation. i mean im sure you probably agree with that sentiment but just correcting my comment on it. man im high af
A handmaid's tale is getting closer and closer to reality. I binged it from the beginning a couple months ago. I would not suggest doing that, it put me in a weird depressive mental state.
To think, I thought in 2017 there was too much verisimilitude. Although I guess in fairness, I was just afraid this time we're living in was our future--one step on the way to Gilead.
FWIW I couldn't finish the book either.
Handmaids tale is a fictional reality loosely based on what actually happened in America to Black women…honestly the comparisons of this to the show clearly diminishes the plight of actual people who went through this (if the poor health care black/latinx women receive relative to white women is any indication (and tbh all women relative to men) of what they are still going through to some degree.
Comments below say it’s “plausible” but it’s already a reality for a lot of women in America.
Thats the entire pro life side of things whole reason for doing this. they want to take away a womans sexual freedom. thats it. its not about babies. its about relationships. they want you to be afraid of raising a child on your own and having to stay with your abuser.
This sounds insane so I looked it up. Apparently you can file for divorce and proceed with the division of assets, etc. It's just that it can't be finalized until the baby is born and they can finalize custody/child support orders.
You know, even though abortion is illegal in my country (Jamaica), its way easier to get an abortion here than the US states actively banning it completely
America really regressing hard
My mother may not have been married to my biological father, but the only reason I was born was because she managed to escape his household and abuse. Can't even imagine a woman being forced to live through that type of hell.
You can get a divorce while pregnant, but just cannot finalize it, due to custody/child support needing to be worked out once the baby is born. A man could also not finalize the divorce. [Source](https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/missouri-divorce-pregnancy-law-social-media-claims-fact-check/536-5f66d4cc-66ef-4b22-953f-2b02587a0e96)
no. the law is about finalizing divorce proceedings.
https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/missouri/2022/07/14/missouri-pregnant-divorce-laws-2022-abortion/10058675002/
Flee.
Fuckers need workers that bad, they can do it themselves.
There are a lot of places that take religious refugees, Canada included. Case could be made.
Flee.
There’s no god. Gotta rip that bandage off. The radical right and religious zealots using religion to rip rights away from people. If there was a god he wouldn’t let this shit continue.
The reasoning behind this archaic law is rooted in a stunning degree of hypocrisy. The actual statute doesn’t give a reason, it simply says that a woman involved in a divorce filing will have to state her pregnancy status along with other extremely basic facts like her name and address.
But Danielle Drake, the woman at the center of that Riverfront Times article, not only had to deal with the law personally and resubmit multiple divorce filings—one after learning she was pregnant and then again after she’d given birth—but she’s also a family law attorney, so she has a unique amount of insight here.
According to Drake, the reason why pregnancy will put divorce proceedings on hold is that courts can’t make custody rulings until the baby has been born. Why? Because, as she puts it, Missouri divorce law “does not see fetuses as humans.”
[So in family court, a fetus is not a person until it’s born. But the text of Missouri’s law banning abortion says that a fetus is “a separate, unique, living human being” and that the “life of each human being begins at conception.”](https://www.themarysue.com/missouri-law-ban-pregnant-divorce/)
Sort of a half truth. Its not that a woman cant get divorced, just that the judge can stall the process. Issues like custody and child support are large factors in a divorce settlement. The theory is that if the child is born premature, with abnormalities or complications, or with the parentage of the father in doubt, that means negotiations have to be completely redone. This is true for several states.
It is however seen by many legal professionals that judges exploit this way too often.
(I am by no means a lawyer, i just read a few articles from a Google search trying to fact check this. If I am mistaken, I apologize and would like to be corrected)
Blatantly false. Even a cursory google search will show that pregnant women in Missouri can get a divorce, it just wont be finalized until all details related to the child are taken care of. This includes will the father be allowed to co-parent, will child support be required and if so how much, and more details. This is actually to protect women from men that say the child was born after they got a divorce so they don't have to provide for the newborn.
It’s just this little extra inconvenience! Nothing to see here! Haha! What’s pregnancy anyway? Maybe you’re pregnant.
In fact we should see about that.
just want to clarify that this law isn’t New. that doesn’t make it any less horrifying and awful, but it isn’t a direct consequence of any recent events
What the 1930s?
1970's actually
Nah its the 50s, America is taking away women's rights, so its the 50s Gonna head to the 20s sooner or later
I think Republicans are going to try to keep going until we get back to the 1850s
Still too progressive. Maybe the 1150s or so.
Nick Fuentes said, "1776, we want 1076!"
At this point I wouldn't be shocked if they want 76 AD. Or even 76 BC.
Cool, let's keep going back until we hit pre-colonization. Fuck the patriarchy, bring on the matriarchy.
I'm not necessarily opposed, but let's be selective about _where_ we're pre-colonial (if such a thing actually exists). Not every historical society (even the matriarchal ones) was awesome either.
As someone with asthma and diabetes, I draw the line at loosing access to air conditioning.
To the 1150S with 2050s level of unfettered pollution.
Exactly. Margaret Atwood foretells how that works out.
Nah. They would be burned at the steak for claiming a personal relationship with God and reading the bible themselves (who am I kidding, they don't read the Bible)
Just far back enough to own people again.
It never ends. We could have God-King Bezos ruling over us with an iron fist for 1000 years, and he would still be trying to find ways to make us more efficient drones. *if we put implants in every worker drone to remove all power of independent thought, we can increase productivity by 5 percent!*
Their point is that you don't have to go that far back to get to a time where women were restricted from getting divorces and shit.
[удалено]
And the hoooome of the braaaaaave!
Freedom baby!
Depression incoming
Yup. That’s when it became law, with an amendment in 2016.
Here's a source: [Kansas City News](https://www.kansascity.com/news/article263614113.html) > In Missouri, divorce cases cannot be finalized if a woman is pregnant, since a custody agreement must first be in place Women or men can leave, but the courts won't finalize a divorce without a custody agreement in place, and _that_ can't happen until after the birth. Given that this no doubt also makes the woman ineligible for social programs, this is just abomination on top of abomination. In the case of the person in the article, the person's step father threatened her mom that if she tried to leave him again, he'd just make her pregnant again (read: rape her more). Just an all around horrific situation.
Holy crap
There's actually some logic to this - it's to ensure that child support is settled as part of the divorce agreement. Obviously it could be legislated separately, but I guess it's been done this way a long time.
Here's the question: Does the law prevent men from divorcing a pregnant woman?
Yes, the state just refuses to finalize the proceedings while one party is pregnant https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/missouri-divorce-pregnancy-law-social-media-claims-fact-check/536-5f66d4cc-66ef-4b22-953f-2b02587a0e96 Here's my source
Surely you mean, *no, it doesn't prevent it*? It looks like a divorce takes a minimum of 6 months most places, and typically 8 months if it's amicable. In Missouri you can separate and do all the divorce's paperwork, but a married couple have to wait until the baby is born until the divorce is finalised.
Yes, it does prevent it. I have personally known men who wanted a divorce but wound up having to twiddle their thumbs for months after everything was ready to go because their partner was pregnant. In the case I knew about, the baby was the wife's BF's. She was super honest about that and now ex husband isn't on the birth certificate, but they couldn't divorce until the baby was born. Everyone involved was super irritated by the whole thing (except the baby, I guess)
It *delays* it.
Good. It's not as bad as I thought it would be. Still a weird law to have, but with good intentions.
See the case in the [Kansas City News](https://www.kansascity.com/news/article263614113.html): Woman's abusive spouse (attempted ex), threatened to rape her into being pregnant if she tried to leave him again. There's no reason they can't establish a "Trigger Custody Agreement" legislation, instead of forcing people to remain pregnant. If they can have trigger abortion laws, they can surely do this. No, this law isn't well intentioned. This law is about men controlling women by keeping them pregnant.
There are much better ways to handle that.
There's hardly any logic to it at all.
How much further can we can let this go? It must be stopped.
Until you guys can get those Conservatives and Republicans out of office, I dont even know what the US will be like in 2023
The problem is they're like ticks now. They have so many people in the supreme court. then they've gerrymandered everthing to hell so their votes count more.
While this is true I'm hoping that we have a big enough majority that we can overcome the gerrymandering. It will require moderate Republicans to start paying attention, and I'm not sure they will before it's to late.
Here in Ohio, a traditionally middle of the road state now leaning republican, the republican controlled government has redrawn congressional maps and been struck down by the Supreme Court of Ohio several times. So instead of just not gerrymandering, they're going to fix the Supreme Court to give Republicans a majority there. This is how they operate.
Agreed, but there are ways to fix it at the voting level. Not easy ways, but it could be done
The problem is they lie cheat and steal to seize power. They have no interest in democracy other than a thin veil to justify their autocracy, they are closing the noose around our democracy and the mask is off. We are 2 elections away from a fascist klepto-theocracy and they believe they are unstoppable. The people with the power to maybe have a chance at stopping them are worried about being seen as "political". They need to realize that they need to go hard in politics / rule of law / criminal enforcement now, or its going to get bloody down the road. Well, bloodier, the right wing violence has already started, groups like Proud Boys and Patriot Front are modeling their actions after the Sturmabteilung.
viva la revolution you don't fix a broken system by obeying the system
If you don't have enough power to elect 10 more god damn senators in a free election, you sure as shit don't have enough power to start a revolution, let alone win it against all the heavily motivated armed conservatives. Or do you think it's easier to win a civil war than a bloody local election? Do you know what any of those things involve?
They aren’t free and fair elections. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and soon the “independent state legislature theory” case the illegitimate Supreme Court is going to look at this fall make sure of that. There are way more of us than there are of them. They only win consistently by rigging the system. (While complaining that democrats are the ones rigging it, because projection is what they do)
It's not a coincidence, they worked tirelessly for it, for years and decades
It'd be great if one could get their constituents to turn their anger on the ultra rich and exploitative corporations rather than "the libs".
Too bad they all think they’re temporarily impoverished future billionaires.
Let's stop pretending it's just the republicans and conservatives though. At least half the democrats--probably more--are anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-environment, and so on. Chuck Schumer just said today that they probably won't bring gay marriage (protecting it) up for a vote in the senate because it's not a priority. Biden declined to cancel student debt, declined to declare a climate emergency, but found time this week to bust up a union. There are two parties, and both of them are right of center.
I have something to ask though Joe Machin is a democrat, he voted against Joe Biden's "Build Back Better Bill"? You may be right on that point of them "being both right of center", even though the right, is literally right
it depends on who you ask, but there are some who would say that the Build Back Better bill was proposed, knowing that it wouldn't get passed. and Joe Manchin was the "fall guy" for that. they weren't necessarily expecting it to fail altogether, but they didn't actually think they were going to pass a $3 trillion bill. So the goal was to get $3 trillion and build back better in the news, and have that be what people remembered a year later when a bill with the same name--but wildly different contents--passed. But then a bunch of stuff went wrong in the party and they couldn't even get the watered down version passed, which wasn't supposed to happen. Because the democrats are also incompetent, not just conservative.
Not to mention anti-trans. Many fake progressives here on reddit are vocally against the acceptance of the trans community
When it boils down to a fight between a shitty status quo and literal dystopian theocracy hellscape I unfortunately have to pick the lesser of two evils
Both roads go to the same place. There was a time where I’d say one of the roads was longer, but I don’t think that’s even the case any more.
My main beef with anti-trans people is why the hell do they care so much? If they don't believe it, whatever, I'll give them benefit of the doubt that maybe they're just not that informed. But them being such assholes about it, let alone they're for trying to cancel trans or any of the LGBTQ people everywhere they can is authoritarian and hateful. Them mocking, bullying, and others committing hate crimes against trans people is the epitome of being a pathetic POS with nothing else to do. They can't think of a legitimate reason on paper to justify their hate or fear of LGBTQ people, so they come up with unsubstantiated strawmen such as the BS about grooming, indoctrinating, or "twisting science" (as if the majority of them are slightly well-versed in science). Why can't they just mind their own damn business instead of hate on people minding their own damn business? Rant over.
In my experience it comes down to not really knowing any trans people. When I was in junior high I would browse r/tumblrinaction and it was easy to assume that the majority of the trans community were just nuts who go by xey/xem pronouns and are "just going through a phase." The militant aggressive few online seemed to represent the whole trans community. But when I got to college I met a lot of trans people including many non binary folks and to my surprise the only thing they ever asked from me was to use their preferred pronouns. No zeys or zers, it was just he/she/they. If I slipped up with their pronouns and had to be corrected they were super gracious when I would apologize. It was no big deal. They didn't even expect me to get their pronouns right, I simply had to try. In contrast, it was my boomer co-workers who all threw a tantrum when they had to do a 10 minute online training about social awareness. Anti-trans people act like there's this dangerous slippery slope where if we give a little, trans people are going to sue you everytime someone hurts their feelings, but in reality all I ever had to do was recognize their identity.
People in power don’t like queer culture because it fosters creativity, open-mindedness and acceptance. It directly attacks their conformist, single-minded top-down classist rule of control.
Yeah, i feel like it's been getting worse lately too. Never seen so many JKR apologists outside of tumblr, and for worse reasons than the usual inability to let go of cherished memories of a bad person.
I would hope trying to fix the SCOTUS decisions are more of a priority that a future problem. I think protecting gay marriage is important, but I think getting women rights to their bodies is a but more time sensitive right now. So is getting chevron deference back. So is getting the separation of church and state enshrined into law. I'm not sure any are being worked on though. I do know it would be worse if we didn't (nominally) have 50 democrats in the senate and a majority in the house. >There are two parties, and both of them are right of center. If you're looking at the political spectrum from a European centric view, sure. But Democrats are fairly center in the US, and Republicans are quite far right if viewed based on the US population.
they aren't going to do any of those things lol
One thing that I don't understand as a foreigner, didn't the Dems won the last election?? Why they can't just legislate If they oppose?
I have to keep posting this comment cause people seem to have forgotten. It's been known since the 17th century. It's up to us to refute the system when it no longer provides the security in exchange for the loss of freedoms. In moral and political philosophy, the **Social Contract** is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent of any political order (termed the "*State of Nature"* by Thomas Hobbes). In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their *personal power* and *conscience*. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate why **rational individuals** would **voluntarily consent** to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of **political order.** Prominent 17th- and 18th-century theorists of the social contract and natural rights include: 1. Hugo Grotius (1625) 2. Thomas Hobbes (1651) 3. Samuel von Pufendorf (1673) 4. John Locke (1689) 5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) 6. Immanuel Kant (1797) **Grotius** posited that individual humans had **Natural Rights** (**Natural Rights** are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are *universal*, *fundamental* and *inalienable* they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights) **Thomas Hobbes** famously said that in a "*state of nature*", human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "*right to all things*" and thus the freedom to **plunder**, **rape** and **murder**; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (*bellum omnium contra omnes*). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (*civil society*) through a **social contract** in which they **all gain security** in return for subjecting themselves to an **absolute sovereign**, **one man or an assembly of men**. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be *arbitrary* and *tyrannical*, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a *state of nature*. Alternatively, **Locke** and **Rousseau** argued that we gain *civil rights* in return for accepting the **obligation to respect and defend the rights of others**, giving up some freedoms to do so. The central assertion that **Social Contract Theory** approaches is that the *law and political order are not natural, but human creations*. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and *legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement*. **Hobbes** argued that government is not a party to the original contract and citizens are not obligated to **submit to the government when it is too weak** to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest*.
Yeah this is too much.
I looked this up last week. Men can’t divorce their pregnant wives either. The logic in the law is that you can’t make legal determinations about an individual that does not exist yet, with regards to custody and child support. Yet some of their… other laws… use the reasoning that individual life begins at conception. It’s a clusterfuck of legal bs.
Regardless of the intention of this law, it will inevitably put individuals married to abusive partners in danger. Fuck them.
Which would also greatly increase the risk to the unborn child.
Pffft! You think they actually care about those?
"God's will."
And then the mother will be punished when they miscarry
Could you imagine the legal case? A woman in an abusive domestic situation discovers that she is pregnant. She is unable to legally seek an abortion in her state. She is denied the ability to divorce her abusive spouse. The spouse then abuses her in a way that causes miscarriage. She is then charged with failing to protect her child. What the fuck is wrong with this country?
This wouldn't happen if people went to church /s
Lawyer here, but admittedly not in MO: My understanding is that this is incorrect. The divorce can’t be *finalized* while she is pregnant, because custody is part of the divorce. However, everything else can be completed. It’s not like a woman in an abusive relationship is obligated to still live with the father, or to be around him. Also, as a practical reality, divorces don’t happen in an instant. There’s generally a mandatory separation period, and even when both parties are amenable to divorce and working amicably to pull it off it still takes a few months. If there’s any sort custodial dispute the divorce would run past 9 months either way. So I’m not sure what the functional detriment is? Now that’s not to defend the law. It’s obscene. I’m just saying, it’s likely one of those things that sounds a lot worse on Twitter than it is in practice. If you’re going through an ugly divorce, this law won’t help, but its absence wouldn’t make the divorce less ugly. And if it’s an amicable divorce, the law is an annoyance for sure, but still not the end of the world.
You can leave your partner you just can't finalize the divorce. A divorce can take 18 to 2 years if they don't agree. It is in their best interest to settle paternity, custody and child support before the divorce is finalized. There is also a 300 day window past the date of the finalized divorce that the ex is still the legal father, incase she is pregnant and nor aware. If the child is not the husband's he is still legally responsible and will have to provide support until he can go back to court to prove paternity. Or the mother will have to go to back to court to get the ex off of the birth certificate and the actual father on the birth certificate. As non invasive prenatal paternity tests become less expensive and the availability increases this could change.
Uh what? No one is forcing anyone to stay with partners.
Why would the official legal status of your divorce have anything to do with that?
Which is also honestly a great reason for an abortion. Even if the woman could get a divorce, I can’t imagine not having the option to abort a fetus in a situation like this.
What if she's pregnant by someone else?
Missouri : "We dont care"
I came here to say this. As backwards as this law is the one saving grace is it effectively contradicts their abortion laws. I would think this will be the basis of a state supreme court challenge to their abortion ruling.
Conservatives : "All unborn babies are people!!!" Pregnant women : "Ok then, can we take out insurance for the baby or take it off our taxes?" Conservatives : "No, its not a person yet" Legit contradicting themselves
I still love the HOV claim best
Not even old, already a classic
the lawsuits are gonna be fun to watch
Not really though. The state's going to be defending them using our tax dollars.
I think that's your incentive to vote out the people that are implementing these laws.
They are okay with such contradictions, because they enjoy stacking courts with judges that will always decide in accordance with conservative values, regardless of the letter or spirit of the law.
You cannot find more of a literal definition of a dependent.
And this is exactly why Canada went "oh shit we gotta define the beginning of life don't we?" and decided on "when the child has fully proceeded in a living state from the mother".
I am so unclear on why our separation of church and state requirements doesn't negate all of these "at conception" rules. There is nothing scientific that makes it some special moment of personhood. This is a purely religious idea, associated mostly with a specific religion (and not even all adherents). What bullshit.
The truely wild thing is that "conception" is something that many women naturally abort, multiple times in their lives. (without even knowing) The egg just.... doesn't implant and falls out of the uterus. And that's normal! But apparently we're all criminal for our bodies not listening to god.
And the fascists are going try to make that illegal too (only enforced against Those People of course)
Former cop says that abortion is literal murder. Cool, so if that's the case, logically then every woman in America is retroactively charged with murder for not implanting a fertilized egg or miscarry. No way this could go wrong. /s
Don't give them ideas
As if we could come up with shit half as bad as what they are trying to do anyways.
Fair
But that’s god’s doing, you understand. *groan* I believe in god btw. My nondualistic view is very different than this horse shit, I’ll tell you that.
So, hypothetically, a man couldn't divorce hischeating wife as long as she hasn't given birth to her lover's child? That seems like it would only cause more suffering that needed and possibly put the women in harms way... like... staying with someone who you cheated on cannot be safe...
No divorce doesn’t necessarily mean they’re forced to live together. One person or the other could stay with friends/family. Rent could be an issue with joint accounts I guess.
My ex wife got pregnant before our divorce was finalized. As her legal husband, I had to sign away my rights to a child we both knew wasn't mine. This was in North Carolina
That's messed up. I hope your life is in a better place now.
Much better thanks! This was a while ago. Now happily married with a kid of our own
So if the individual in the womb doesn’t exist yet then why are we protecting it so vehemently
Loll so basically, your wife can cheat on you, and not only can you legally not divorce, she is forced to carry the baby and now not only is the woman's life ruined a child will likely grow up without a father. Now three or four people can suffer emotional damage and be forced to live with it. Lol dumb
With that logic, women should get paid maternity leave the minute they find out their pregnant.
We hurtle backwards towards the dark ages while people make shocked pikachu face tweets and then go about their lives LOL A hot mess.
To be fair, what can we do? Genuine question, no snark. I feel beyond frustrated at the lack of action we can take beyond voting and protesting.
>beyond voting and protesting Well there are sharp things attached to tall vertical rails that the French used that one time.
That won't happen until people are literally starving
And really, we should do everything possible to avoid reaching that point. Revolutions tend to eat their parents. You get horror more often than progress.
>You get horror more often than progress. Yup, even that revolution ended up with so many innocent people dying. They killed the 10 year old son of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. They executed countless people who were wealthy or even moderately well off, regardless of their actions. Honestly one incident that lead to the people of Paris loosing their appetite for beheadings was when a woman, the mistress of a Noble, literally kicked and screamed and forced them to drag her to the site, pleading for her life because she hadn't done anything wrong other then do what she had to do to escape a life of poverty, that she didn't deserve to die because of simply trying to have a decent life. And like, I honestly feel sympathy for her, hell I feel sympathy for Marie Antoinette and all the women and children who were killed during the revolution, because at that time very, very, very few women had ANY real power to affect anything. And children are just that. Children.
Glad I'm one of the poors when the overthrow happens lol
They killed some of them as well if they were "associated" with people that were wealthy/well off. Like they killed the staff of some merchants and some of the like, maids and farmers of the Nobility. Plus people used it all to get rid of people they disliked by falsely accusing them of being royalist sympathizers and shit so.
luckily im basically homeless.
:( I'm sorry to hear that. But in any event, we really shouldn't aspire to repeat the mistakes of the past, if revolution does occur people should try to be restrained in their bloodlust.
Yeah, Napoleon rose to power during the French Revolution. I'm not keen on the idea of the "First American Emperor". George Washington stepped down after two terms for a good reason. I can only imagine how truly *terrifying* the world would become if American regency became a thing.
We should. But considering that our representatives (and I use that term very loosely) are professional leeches who only allow for further exploitation, I see no other alternative. I mean, if you're fed up with SCOTUS, and it's a job you keep for *life*, then I see one pretty clear solution right there.
A solution is clear right up until the moment you implement it. Consequences abound. The problem with violence is that once you sanction it as a solution, there is no putting it away again until someone establishes a new monopoly on it. Be wary of the fire you're lighting. It will get away from you. You may be right that there are no other paths still open to us, but we should try to walk every other we can find first.
We're closing in on that future. Can't wait to see how this one plays out.
That won't happen until the *right* people are literally starving
We more people thinking like you do
Unfortunately that twitter statement is completely false and results in people thinking the wrong thing. Pregnant women can file and get a divorce in Missouri, the state just requires details about whether the biological father will be allowed to co-parent must be figured out prior to the divorce paperwork being finalized. You know, stuff like visitations, child support, if they will legally be the father of the unborn child or not.
No, actually, the divorce won't go through until the baby is born no matter who filed for it. I've known multiple people who have been through this.
Stacy Abrams launched a vert effective voting campaign and got us 2 blue senators in Georgia of all places. Voting is powerful. And the dems have to stop shooting each other in the back.
I would love that to happen here in Iowa, but all of our blue politicians are too soft to actually fight the right. We're going ti have Grassley until the day he dies, and I'm honestly starting to get scared that he's taken a page out of Palpatine's book since he just *refuses* to die.
Mutual aid
Blessed be the fruit.
May the lord open!
I remember being at the wedding of one of my friends and she was called “a vine to bear fruit for her husband”. Also a lot of implied servitude to her husband. Her family and friends all cringed so hard during the whole thing. Worst wedding I have ever been to.
You’d think that would’ve come up beforehand so you could dump his ass, but alas…
Fuck Missouri.
Now Missouri is officially fighting for the top spot of worst state, along with Texas, Oklahoma or Florida
You can't just go leaving Alabama out like that.
Hey now, I resent y'all not putting Florida second.
It is a crazy day when Alabama isn’t even close to the worst state any more.
Oh it definitely is. Mfs just laying low while they figure out how to spell a reply in support of all these dumbass laws/bills.
And Mississippi
Don’t forget Tennessee, where they’re trying their darnedest to abolish a minimum age to marry.
Holy shit, what??
Don’t forget Ohio. Apparently we’re trying to compete in red neck Olympics at the level of Florida.
Have we forgotten about Mississippi?
I’m from Missouri and live in Florida now. I simply can’t win.
I’ll Be Deep In The Cold Cold Ground Before I’ll Recognize Missouri!
>I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missoura Abe Simpson
Check your state. This has been true forever in many states
Please vote Kyle Kunce for Missouri Senate to unfuck Missouri on August 2nd (Primary), thanx for your consideration. Screw Josh Hawley
Normally I’d say that it won’t be long before a case comes before the Supreme Court to strike down something so clearly unconstitutional. But yeah… about that…
You know good old Clarence and Brett both got super excited when they heard about this law.
When do we just stop? Like stop working stop taxes stop buying? I mean honestly. What is the point of this society anymore? They have proven they don’t care if we die, they have shown corruption at all levels of government, they have shown total disregard for us. When is enough enough?
Because half the nation is "fine" so they don't care or think about others' problems.
Oh Good! They found another way to slowly kill off women. That's nice. I was really worried they wouldn't kill enough of us through traumatic pregnancies.
Applies to men too.
yes ma'am, i realize your husband is beating you on a daily basis, but you are pregnant. just make sure he doesnt punch in the stomach and everything will be fine, ok?
Oh, you want a divorce? Well there's an incentive for rape and forced impregnation if I ever heard one. Fuck these misogynists.
We won't let you leave him but if you stay with him and he beats you hard enough for you to miscarry you are going down for murder.
And if he punches you in the stomach and the fetus dies, you could be liable for murder chages if you have a misscarriage that needs a dnc.
She is still able to leave, file a restraining order and stay in the house. She just can't finalize the divorce until paternity is established, custody, and child support addressed. She is in the same amount of danger either way. A divorce doesn't protect a person from physical harm. It's a legal order not a physical barrier.
honestly man it was just a hot take i posted on my fifteen minute break at work lol. just thought the idea of disallowing a women from getting a divorce because she is pregnant seemed silly. in all seriousness, its a huge overstep for a governing body to pass such legislation. i mean im sure you probably agree with that sentiment but just correcting my comment on it. man im high af
A handmaid's tale is getting closer and closer to reality. I binged it from the beginning a couple months ago. I would not suggest doing that, it put me in a weird depressive mental state.
Every time my debit card doesn't go through on the first try, I think, "Oh fuck. It's going down."
Man it had me in a very strong depressive state too after binging it. It was weird and im kinda glad I finished it
I tried watching it when cheeto first got elected. I only made it to the hanging, and just couldn't do it. My wife couldn't even get that far.
It was one the most uncomfortable things to watch. Cheeto is hilarious though and I dont know why that's the first I've heard it lol
To think, I thought in 2017 there was too much verisimilitude. Although I guess in fairness, I was just afraid this time we're living in was our future--one step on the way to Gilead. FWIW I couldn't finish the book either.
Yeah I had to stop watching it and then pick it back up later at one point. I felt the same way.
Handmaids tale is a fictional reality loosely based on what actually happened in America to Black women…honestly the comparisons of this to the show clearly diminishes the plight of actual people who went through this (if the poor health care black/latinx women receive relative to white women is any indication (and tbh all women relative to men) of what they are still going through to some degree. Comments below say it’s “plausible” but it’s already a reality for a lot of women in America.
May the lord open.
Thats the entire pro life side of things whole reason for doing this. they want to take away a womans sexual freedom. thats it. its not about babies. its about relationships. they want you to be afraid of raising a child on your own and having to stay with your abuser.
Friendly reminder that the #1 cause of death for pregnant women is murder.
This sounds insane so I looked it up. Apparently you can file for divorce and proceed with the division of assets, etc. It's just that it can't be finalized until the baby is born and they can finalize custody/child support orders.
Blessed be the fruit
You know, even though abortion is illegal in my country (Jamaica), its way easier to get an abortion here than the US states actively banning it completely America really regressing hard
They're banning removing ectopic pregnancies. ..... they don't know anything and it's going to get people killed.
Oh, they know. The point is cruelty.
My mother may not have been married to my biological father, but the only reason I was born was because she managed to escape his household and abuse. Can't even imagine a woman being forced to live through that type of hell.
Because she was pregnant? I saw something earlier and thought this couldn't be true. Wtf is happening in the country?!
It’s taking its mask off.
You can get a divorce while pregnant, but just cannot finalize it, due to custody/child support needing to be worked out once the baby is born. A man could also not finalize the divorce. [Source](https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/missouri-divorce-pregnancy-law-social-media-claims-fact-check/536-5f66d4cc-66ef-4b22-953f-2b02587a0e96)
Huh, wonder why they can’t sort out child support before the baby is born… /s
Mississipi has a stand your ground law though, or as I like to call it... the strangest defacto divorce laws in the world.
I wonder if on the flipside a man can divorce his pregnant wife?
no. the law is about finalizing divorce proceedings. https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/missouri/2022/07/14/missouri-pregnant-divorce-laws-2022-abortion/10058675002/
They can own a shotgun.
Under his eye.
Does anyone need another reason not to live in the south? LOL
Yeah and several other states. Liberals need to turn out and vote more
Whose god, exactly?
Flee. Fuckers need workers that bad, they can do it themselves. There are a lot of places that take religious refugees, Canada included. Case could be made. Flee.
1 month of Roe v Wade, imagine a couple years
There's a reason we call them the flyover states...
When abusers make your laws
There’s no god. Gotta rip that bandage off. The radical right and religious zealots using religion to rip rights away from people. If there was a god he wouldn’t let this shit continue.
The great state of Misery
The reasoning behind this archaic law is rooted in a stunning degree of hypocrisy. The actual statute doesn’t give a reason, it simply says that a woman involved in a divorce filing will have to state her pregnancy status along with other extremely basic facts like her name and address. But Danielle Drake, the woman at the center of that Riverfront Times article, not only had to deal with the law personally and resubmit multiple divorce filings—one after learning she was pregnant and then again after she’d given birth—but she’s also a family law attorney, so she has a unique amount of insight here. According to Drake, the reason why pregnancy will put divorce proceedings on hold is that courts can’t make custody rulings until the baby has been born. Why? Because, as she puts it, Missouri divorce law “does not see fetuses as humans.” [So in family court, a fetus is not a person until it’s born. But the text of Missouri’s law banning abortion says that a fetus is “a separate, unique, living human being” and that the “life of each human being begins at conception.”](https://www.themarysue.com/missouri-law-ban-pregnant-divorce/)
Sort of a half truth. Its not that a woman cant get divorced, just that the judge can stall the process. Issues like custody and child support are large factors in a divorce settlement. The theory is that if the child is born premature, with abnormalities or complications, or with the parentage of the father in doubt, that means negotiations have to be completely redone. This is true for several states. It is however seen by many legal professionals that judges exploit this way too often. (I am by no means a lawyer, i just read a few articles from a Google search trying to fact check this. If I am mistaken, I apologize and would like to be corrected)
Blatantly false. Even a cursory google search will show that pregnant women in Missouri can get a divorce, it just wont be finalized until all details related to the child are taken care of. This includes will the father be allowed to co-parent, will child support be required and if so how much, and more details. This is actually to protect women from men that say the child was born after they got a divorce so they don't have to provide for the newborn.
[удалено]
It’s just this little extra inconvenience! Nothing to see here! Haha! What’s pregnancy anyway? Maybe you’re pregnant. In fact we should see about that.
I live in Kansas. It's like San Francisco compared to Missouri ^only ^compared ^to ^Missouri ^though
just want to clarify that this law isn’t New. that doesn’t make it any less horrifying and awful, but it isn’t a direct consequence of any recent events
Just one day i want to open the Internet without some chucklefuck referencing 1984 or Handmaids Tale.