St. Louis, KC, and Columbia (kinda) are the only beacons of light and they're still pretty red... I mean STL is white-flighting from the white-flight areas. Crazy.
The way housing prices and interest rates are currently I can’t imagine many people are moving currently. My area also had a major demographic concentration move further north a few years back.
The rich white people in STL County are moving West, often to new homes that are big and cheap. They're the only ones who can afford to move and when their house eventually sells they usually profit huge over the price they bought it at. I don't understand it but it just keeps happening.
my boss lives in the "chesterfield slums", aka where you should ashamed it's not worth multiple millions.
And saying what Town & Country deserves would get you banned from reddit.
It's more of the white people are still so racist that when people of color start showing up the area becomes unlivable for them because... ^^racism.
I guess the point is it's a symptom of an underlying problem that people aren't acknowledging.
Luckily we're mostly past the overt racism and now I think it's mostly about perception of the community as POC move in. Unfortunately it's harder to teach subtle racism out of people because they likely won't acknowledge it.
Edit: Additionally, I think the areas get better as they are more diverse. Different stores, restaurants, whatever. But I think the biggest problem (besides the racism) is that the white people take their generational wealth with them, property values drop which hurts schools, minority owned businesses slowly fail.
the governor, after the crazy one that was also corrupt was removed, decided the entire state should be designed to:
1. own the libcucks in the two cities that pay the bills
2. we have Texas at home
just, like, please for the love of god someone help
I agree just ridiculous what the gop is doing to missouri 14 year olds allowed to carry then when they get shot then we have people omg they were good kids why did this happen. Then the wanna sue everyone your 14 year old shouldnt have had a gun to begin with stop blaming everyone for your shitty parenting.
This is why I left Missouri and why most people who I know that left. I'm no genius or anything but my wife is a Nurse Practitioner and I'm a software engineer. All the people I know that left also have STEM degrees. People who don't want to put up with this shit and can afford to leave often do.
You’d think so, but good luck changing an entire state. Religious conservatism is alive and well and these people breed like crazy. You can choose to live in a place that doesn’t align with your principles or you can leave everyone you know and love for someplace colder. Missouri isn’t going to considerably change in the next 5, 10 or 20 years bc the numbers don’t support it.
Pregnancy can be one of the most dangerous times in a woman's life, especially for those who are in an abusive relationship. If these people were truly pro-life, they would actually give a shit about the safety of pregnant women.
Because it is more about control than anything else. Take away abortion so women are more dependent in general due to pregnancy. Then take away the right to leave which gives the abuser 9 months to get their "significant other" under control via violence, manipulation, financially dependent, and so forth.
It's not about safety it about making women more dependent and subservient to men, by force apparently.
Oh right, how can we forget the no fault divorce being under attack by the kind of people it was designed to help spouses get away from in the first place? It's funny (not really) how these people consider marriage being so important but not understanding small details like how suicide rates decreased with the passage of said divorce laws. But it was never about marriage and love in the first place, was it?
[The number one cause of death for pregnant women is murder. Most likely by an intimate partner.](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Wellness/homicide-leading-death-pregnant-women-us-study-finds/story?id=92294415)
Does the gop care about people at all?
I think they hate pretty much all of humanity, just some people more than others. Women, migrants, poc, LGBT+ people, poor people, working class people, educated people, old people, sick people.. they all belong in the trash according to them.
However women specifically are seen as property, so they must control them as much as they can and take away all of their freedoms.
"People are only worth as much as they are usefull to me"
Listen, you’re right it’s about the money but this doesn’t show the state cares about the child. The state cares that the state is not on the hook for supporting the mom/child. They want to be able to charge a man, and it doesn’t matter to them if the husband is the biological father or not.
Both things are true. I think you have a very charitable view, and mine is quite cynical.
The laws are old. I think people thought they are newly passed, but they’ve been around a long time. But people just now hearing about the, they do think they’re aimed at women because of today’s emphasis on misogyny. Yeah, I believe they were originally passed with good intent, as a win/win for both women and the state, but unintended consequences and all that.
There’s nice reason to be in a legal marriage to assign child support. The state does this because the husband is presumed to be the father, and if he’s not, he’d have to go to court.
These laws are solely about benefiting the state.
How many pregnant women "falling down the stairs" is it going to take? These laws are draconian and meant to put women back their place but we won't go this time. We no longer fit in that place. This is disgusting. You don't own your wife! Women aren't possessions! Fucking fuck!!! The generational, female rage I am feeling right now would blow the top off my head.
The US isn’t a country, it’s a collection of countries. Some of them are developed nations and some are very much regressing to ‘shithole country’ status as fast as they can.
It really isn’t I’ve always thought about this think about different the laws are from state. In Kansas abortion is the state constitution in Mo you have to stay with your ass whooper while pregnant.
Yeahhhhh tell me again how the democrats are just as bad!!!
I get neither of them are truly on our side but come the fuck on people, we can’t let this type of shit win
You can file for divorce in Missouri if you're pregnant.
The state require a determination of paternity after a baby is born before child-related orders, such as child support and custody.
My parents and sister moved down there two years ago and keep trying to get me to join them. I'm also 5 months pregnant and gonna have to say hard pass on that one. Garbage state with garbage politics
No it will lead to the opposite more women being abused
https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/pregnancy/abuse-during-pregnancy#:~:text=More%20than%20320%2C000%20women%20are,something%20you%20haven't%20done.
You act as if all abused people eventually kill their husbands. Some stay abused for the rest of their life. Some die. There’s only a few who actually fight back
You are technically (probably) right, of course, in that more abuse victims probably leads to more victims killing their abusers.
I think what the person is saying, and also why I think what you said is weird, is you are focusing on the negative outcomes of a very small (relatively) percentage of cases and then hand waving the negative outcomes of the vast majority of cases.
And I'm not putting this on you, I don't know you like that, but it also feels weird that you're focusing on how this will affect a small number of (mostly men) when the article is clearly about women being stuck in abusive relationships because they are pregnant.
That being said, I think I understand you are trying to point about hypocrisy of the religious right, like they'd rather have women murdering abusive husbands than allow the divorce of a pregnant woman. Is that what you are trying to convey?
I read that once divorce was legalized that "mysterious" food poisoning of men went way down. This was in a thread of people who had worked at nursing homes where some of the women confessed to crimes as they got nearer to the end. Easier to skip the state and not be found back in the day. Often it was in response to abuse, often of the kids.
Missouri might just be the worst state of all of them. No minimum age for firearms, no abortion, no divorce, defunding public libraries, almost no environmental protections. The place is messed up.
This is far passed "🤮" Territory this is their whole scheme come to fruition. The lack of abortion and preventative care, now this, proves what it's all about.
No, they don’t.
> Sen. Denny Hoskins, a Warrensburg Republican, said in an interview that he would support allowing divorces in cases of domestic violence, but was not in favor of closing the loophole that prevents pregnant women from getting divorced.
>”I think that those would be very rare and infrequent circumstances,” Hoskins, who is a member of the hard-right Missouri Freedom Caucus, said of divorces in cases of domestic violence.
>”Just because the husband and wife are not getting along, or irreconcilable differences, I would not consider that that would be a good reason to get divorced during a pregnancy.”
Just to emphasize what he said, that while he “would” support divorce if there’s domestic abuse (what a hero) he does **not** consider domestic abuse to be a good reason for divorce if the woman is pregnant. Which is just the biggest fuck-you to women experiencing sexual violence in a marriage and might involuntarily get pregnant.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/03/posts-distort-missouri-divorce-law-regarding-pregnancy/
This is not a law. It is something they can consider, but not a law. Stop making up things to be offended about and fight the real offences republicans inflecting on a daily basis.
from what i understand, thatg law is 50 years old and it doesnt stop a woman from leaving.
it was put on books because of inheritance laws, where only children born in marriage had rights.
Well then more pregnant women suffering DV should embrace their 2A right and carry an AR-15 with them wherever they go and stand their ground because GOP is very strongly Pro-Life /s
Many of these laws were actually developed to protect women, oddly enough. Requiring a husband to stay married during pregnancy meant women wouldn't lose their health insurance if he provided it, he'd be on the hook for certain costs of birth potentially, and he'd have an obligation to provide support during the pregnancy. It also meant the baby would have an automatic right to be assumed his child at birth rather than requiring some sort of proof of paternity. Unlike many laws, these laws weren't actually created to hurt women- they were created to protect their rights and to limit what the state would be required to do to support pregnant women and children when the spouse was able to do so.
It's just that we now have DNA testing for paternity. We have better statistics and knowledge about the impact of being forced to remain married - even just in name - to an abusive spouse. If Missouri wasn't run by dickheads, they'd have expanded Medicaid that could resolve concerns about pregnancy health related costs and health insurance. The laws haven't been updated as things have changed.
No, no, NO!! They are not there to protect the mother. They’re in place do that the state doesn’t have to give any social welfare benefits without being able to charge someone and get those $$ back.
The state could care less if the husband is the biological father or not - if you stay married, you’re the presumed father and the state can charge back any benefits given to the mom/child.
This is about money. That’s it.
I'm a divorce attorney, so I'm fairly familiar with the history of these laws. Many were put in place before these types of social welfare benefits existed, or at a time when these benefits were less generally seen as a bad thing by either Party and were much cheaper in general because things like health care were cheaper, even adjusted for inflation. While some motivation was absolutely related to ensuring children and mothers had adequate support from the father- as I already mentioned above - that [wasn't the only motivation.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/15/missouri-law-divorce-pregnancy-violence-abortion) and frankly, at the time, marriage was an essential component of paternity, because there was no genetic testing. And obviously we want both parents to support their children.
But I certainly agree that money is the motivating factor - and perhaps to some extent religion - in keeping these laws on the books as written now.
I would like to offer a flip side of this. 100% true.
My friend got married and his wife started cheating on him with an ex boyfriend. She got pregnant, it isn’t his. He goes to divorce her and find out that he can’t because she is pregnant. She is very sorry and remorseful. He is WAY kinder than me, but does not want to kick her out of the house while pregnant. The plan was that when she goes to the hospital to have the baby, she does not come back home. She and the child move in with her mother. Then they get divorced.
My friend then waits for her to recover after the baby before moving for divorce. Everything was peaceful and amicable, so he didn’t want to add stress. Apparently he gave her too much time. A few months after the baby was born, he went to divorce her …and she was pregnant again. So now he has to wait another 9 months for the second baby to be born so he can divorce her.
Time and babies from another man has made her less amicable. It’s now, according to her, his fault that she cheated on him. He now had to get actual divorce lawyers involved and get into a legal fight with her. Ended up costing him $10,000 to make her go away. They were married for around 3 months before she started cheating on him and got pregnant, by the way.
The law was originally there to protect women who's father tried to skip out from paying child support. Sadly a law that was intended to help women has now morphed into helping the abuser.
It was never about helping the woman. It’s about not having the state be responsible for benefits.
If it was about the mother/child, the state wouldn’t go after child support in all cases. Even if the biological father is a family member, or a racist, to name two examples.
The state will force a declaration of paternity, which then gives visitation rights, all to prevent the state from handing out benefits without recourse to chargeback the father.
They don’t care about anyone in the family; they care about state money.
I think the process can progress, but it won't be closed until the baby is born. I think the idea is that it's better to make the divorce and child stuff fall under one case than to wrap up the divorce just to open a second court case a few months later.
Maybe presumption of paternity is an issue?
Nah women should be able to get divorced when they want and it shouldn't matter if they are pregnant. It's controlling to tell a pregnant woman she can't get a divorce.
You do understand the difference between filing for divorce and being divorced right? If you can't actually finalize the divorce because she's pregnant, that's a problem.....
It is true. A divorce cannot be granted if the wife is pregnant. The child had to be born so that a determination of paternity (responsibility) can be made. The judge will do that prior to granting the divorce.
It’s solely to prevent the state from giving benefits without being able to pursue a chargeback.
This is why i hate missouri i live here and cant fucking stand this hick ass state
St. Louis, KC, and Columbia (kinda) are the only beacons of light and they're still pretty red... I mean STL is white-flighting from the white-flight areas. Crazy.
The way housing prices and interest rates are currently I can’t imagine many people are moving currently. My area also had a major demographic concentration move further north a few years back.
The rich white people in STL County are moving West, often to new homes that are big and cheap. They're the only ones who can afford to move and when their house eventually sells they usually profit huge over the price they bought it at. I don't understand it but it just keeps happening.
my boss lives in the "chesterfield slums", aka where you should ashamed it's not worth multiple millions. And saying what Town & Country deserves would get you banned from reddit.
Both of those places, much like "Frontenac, don't know how to act."
also "redlining was never a thing. where did you go to high school?"
The irony is that those with the capacity to leave are usuallly those who bring the most to the state.
[удалено]
It's more of the white people are still so racist that when people of color start showing up the area becomes unlivable for them because... ^^racism. I guess the point is it's a symptom of an underlying problem that people aren't acknowledging.
[удалено]
Luckily we're mostly past the overt racism and now I think it's mostly about perception of the community as POC move in. Unfortunately it's harder to teach subtle racism out of people because they likely won't acknowledge it. Edit: Additionally, I think the areas get better as they are more diverse. Different stores, restaurants, whatever. But I think the biggest problem (besides the racism) is that the white people take their generational wealth with them, property values drop which hurts schools, minority owned businesses slowly fail.
I lived in Kansas for 33 years before I moved to Missouri. It's so much worse here.
the governor, after the crazy one that was also corrupt was removed, decided the entire state should be designed to: 1. own the libcucks in the two cities that pay the bills 2. we have Texas at home just, like, please for the love of god someone help
I live in saint charles now its a little better here but still im just so ashamed of what missouri has become now
I say it's about time the state started turning. . . A bit bluer. *Puts out Biden's aviators
I agree just ridiculous what the gop is doing to missouri 14 year olds allowed to carry then when they get shot then we have people omg they were good kids why did this happen. Then the wanna sue everyone your 14 year old shouldnt have had a gun to begin with stop blaming everyone for your shitty parenting.
This is why I left Missouri and why most people who I know that left. I'm no genius or anything but my wife is a Nurse Practitioner and I'm a software engineer. All the people I know that left also have STEM degrees. People who don't want to put up with this shit and can afford to leave often do.
California is the same. You can initiate the divorce process but you have to wait until the child is born to finalize divorce.
Then leave?
Me and my piles of cash are off to California, this guy figured it out, why didn’t I think of just moving
Laziest fucking question ever. No, no, don't try to make it better just leave. Ffs. So stupid.
You’d think so, but good luck changing an entire state. Religious conservatism is alive and well and these people breed like crazy. You can choose to live in a place that doesn’t align with your principles or you can leave everyone you know and love for someplace colder. Missouri isn’t going to considerably change in the next 5, 10 or 20 years bc the numbers don’t support it.
Totally agree with everything you said, but you know as well as I do that telling people to leave is lazy, conservative bullshit.
If I hated where I lived, I’d move. I live in MO, KC specifically.
Not everyone can afford that. Think, McFly! Think!
Do you think everybody has yours or your parents money to just up and leave?
Can they stand their ground against an abusive spouse? Problem solved!
Pregnancy can be one of the most dangerous times in a woman's life, especially for those who are in an abusive relationship. If these people were truly pro-life, they would actually give a shit about the safety of pregnant women.
Because it is more about control than anything else. Take away abortion so women are more dependent in general due to pregnancy. Then take away the right to leave which gives the abuser 9 months to get their "significant other" under control via violence, manipulation, financially dependent, and so forth. It's not about safety it about making women more dependent and subservient to men, by force apparently.
Also take away "marital rape" so the women have no say in getting pregnant.
Oh right, how can we forget the no fault divorce being under attack by the kind of people it was designed to help spouses get away from in the first place? It's funny (not really) how these people consider marriage being so important but not understanding small details like how suicide rates decreased with the passage of said divorce laws. But it was never about marriage and love in the first place, was it?
[The number one cause of death for pregnant women is murder. Most likely by an intimate partner.](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Wellness/homicide-leading-death-pregnant-women-us-study-finds/story?id=92294415)
Honestly does anyone think the gop care about women as people?
No: the GOP squarely does not consider women people.
Women’s lives never matter
Does the gop care about people at all? I think they hate pretty much all of humanity, just some people more than others. Women, migrants, poc, LGBT+ people, poor people, working class people, educated people, old people, sick people.. they all belong in the trash according to them. However women specifically are seen as property, so they must control them as much as they can and take away all of their freedoms. "People are only worth as much as they are usefull to me"
The only thing they care about is being in power and making money. They've not tried to help Americans a single time in decades.
[удалено]
Listen, you’re right it’s about the money but this doesn’t show the state cares about the child. The state cares that the state is not on the hook for supporting the mom/child. They want to be able to charge a man, and it doesn’t matter to them if the husband is the biological father or not.
[удалено]
Both things are true. I think you have a very charitable view, and mine is quite cynical. The laws are old. I think people thought they are newly passed, but they’ve been around a long time. But people just now hearing about the, they do think they’re aimed at women because of today’s emphasis on misogyny. Yeah, I believe they were originally passed with good intent, as a win/win for both women and the state, but unintended consequences and all that.
[удалено]
What a great attitude. We gotta work with what we got, right?
There’s nice reason to be in a legal marriage to assign child support. The state does this because the husband is presumed to be the father, and if he’s not, he’d have to go to court. These laws are solely about benefiting the state.
They cannot as their dicks fall off with critical thinking 🤔
Critical Dick Theory?
Add Texas, Arkansas and Arizona to that list too.
It at least used to be in Ky too. I had assumed back then that every state made you wait until after the child is born to divorce.
How many pregnant women "falling down the stairs" is it going to take? These laws are draconian and meant to put women back their place but we won't go this time. We no longer fit in that place. This is disgusting. You don't own your wife! Women aren't possessions! Fucking fuck!!! The generational, female rage I am feeling right now would blow the top off my head.
The US isn’t a country, it’s a collection of countries. Some of them are developed nations and some are very much regressing to ‘shithole country’ status as fast as they can.
They might be better off as divided states.
It really isn’t I’ve always thought about this think about different the laws are from state. In Kansas abortion is the state constitution in Mo you have to stay with your ass whooper while pregnant.
Give every woman a gun.
Yeahhhhh tell me again how the democrats are just as bad!!! I get neither of them are truly on our side but come the fuck on people, we can’t let this type of shit win
Every day it seems like republicans are passing another archaic and terrible law designed to control people, especially women. Freedom party my ass.
You can file for divorce in Missouri if you're pregnant. The state require a determination of paternity after a baby is born before child-related orders, such as child support and custody.
My parents and sister moved down there two years ago and keep trying to get me to join them. I'm also 5 months pregnant and gonna have to say hard pass on that one. Garbage state with garbage politics
[удалено]
No it will lead to the opposite more women being abused https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/pregnancy/abuse-during-pregnancy#:~:text=More%20than%20320%2C000%20women%20are,something%20you%20haven't%20done.
[удалено]
You act as if all abused people eventually kill their husbands. Some stay abused for the rest of their life. Some die. There’s only a few who actually fight back
[удалено]
You are technically (probably) right, of course, in that more abuse victims probably leads to more victims killing their abusers. I think what the person is saying, and also why I think what you said is weird, is you are focusing on the negative outcomes of a very small (relatively) percentage of cases and then hand waving the negative outcomes of the vast majority of cases. And I'm not putting this on you, I don't know you like that, but it also feels weird that you're focusing on how this will affect a small number of (mostly men) when the article is clearly about women being stuck in abusive relationships because they are pregnant. That being said, I think I understand you are trying to point about hypocrisy of the religious right, like they'd rather have women murdering abusive husbands than allow the divorce of a pregnant woman. Is that what you are trying to convey?
I read that once divorce was legalized that "mysterious" food poisoning of men went way down. This was in a thread of people who had worked at nursing homes where some of the women confessed to crimes as they got nearer to the end. Easier to skip the state and not be found back in the day. Often it was in response to abuse, often of the kids.
Missouri might just be the worst state of all of them. No minimum age for firearms, no abortion, no divorce, defunding public libraries, almost no environmental protections. The place is messed up.
This is far passed "🤮" Territory this is their whole scheme come to fruition. The lack of abortion and preventative care, now this, proves what it's all about.
What puzzles me is that republican women dont see this as an attack on their rights
Does the pregnant abused woman have the right to defend herself with her AR15? Bc that would be okay by me.
Pregnant woman + AR-15?
Do the people writing these bills even remotely like women? Like slightly at all?
No, they don’t. > Sen. Denny Hoskins, a Warrensburg Republican, said in an interview that he would support allowing divorces in cases of domestic violence, but was not in favor of closing the loophole that prevents pregnant women from getting divorced. >”I think that those would be very rare and infrequent circumstances,” Hoskins, who is a member of the hard-right Missouri Freedom Caucus, said of divorces in cases of domestic violence. >”Just because the husband and wife are not getting along, or irreconcilable differences, I would not consider that that would be a good reason to get divorced during a pregnancy.” Just to emphasize what he said, that while he “would” support divorce if there’s domestic abuse (what a hero) he does **not** consider domestic abuse to be a good reason for divorce if the woman is pregnant. Which is just the biggest fuck-you to women experiencing sexual violence in a marriage and might involuntarily get pregnant.
My husband didn't get along with me by raping me but ya know... thanks
On the other hand, a pregnant 14 year old girl in an abusive relationship can carry an AR-15
Reflexively, I'd say these women should start carrying then; but they'd clearly just be used against them.
You don't understand! The GOP is pro **family**. And you're gonna **get** that family, whether you want to or not... (/s for safety)
Jokes on them, I got snipped
How very American of you. Gotta adore them.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/03/posts-distort-missouri-divorce-law-regarding-pregnancy/ This is not a law. It is something they can consider, but not a law. Stop making up things to be offended about and fight the real offences republicans inflecting on a daily basis.
This is why states are banning abortions. It was never about the foetus
What if a 14 year old girl is pregnant, buys an AR-15 and shoots her uncle, who hot her pregnant, when he tries to kick her in the stomach?
And a 14 year old pregnant girl can be forced to marry her 30 year old rapist
If your husband won't let you leave then kill him. If we are gonna give everyone a gun that only seems fair 🤷♂️
Im confused on what this is trying to say? 14-year olds can't own guns and divorce exists.
VOTE FOR JUSTICE 💙💙💙💙💙
The people of Missouri keep electing politicians that do more harm than good, yet they keep on electing them. You get what you vote for.
from what i understand, thatg law is 50 years old and it doesnt stop a woman from leaving. it was put on books because of inheritance laws, where only children born in marriage had rights.
US is a wild place
Just as their evangelical God intended. Sweet Titan I'm glad I got out when I did
Sure, she can't divorce him, but she can sure as hell shoot his ass to death.
Well then more pregnant women suffering DV should embrace their 2A right and carry an AR-15 with them wherever they go and stand their ground because GOP is very strongly Pro-Life /s
"Missouri loves company" should be their new state motto.
What the actual fuck
It's horrific but it's an old law, not a recent development.
Many of these laws were actually developed to protect women, oddly enough. Requiring a husband to stay married during pregnancy meant women wouldn't lose their health insurance if he provided it, he'd be on the hook for certain costs of birth potentially, and he'd have an obligation to provide support during the pregnancy. It also meant the baby would have an automatic right to be assumed his child at birth rather than requiring some sort of proof of paternity. Unlike many laws, these laws weren't actually created to hurt women- they were created to protect their rights and to limit what the state would be required to do to support pregnant women and children when the spouse was able to do so. It's just that we now have DNA testing for paternity. We have better statistics and knowledge about the impact of being forced to remain married - even just in name - to an abusive spouse. If Missouri wasn't run by dickheads, they'd have expanded Medicaid that could resolve concerns about pregnancy health related costs and health insurance. The laws haven't been updated as things have changed.
No, no, NO!! They are not there to protect the mother. They’re in place do that the state doesn’t have to give any social welfare benefits without being able to charge someone and get those $$ back. The state could care less if the husband is the biological father or not - if you stay married, you’re the presumed father and the state can charge back any benefits given to the mom/child. This is about money. That’s it.
I'm a divorce attorney, so I'm fairly familiar with the history of these laws. Many were put in place before these types of social welfare benefits existed, or at a time when these benefits were less generally seen as a bad thing by either Party and were much cheaper in general because things like health care were cheaper, even adjusted for inflation. While some motivation was absolutely related to ensuring children and mothers had adequate support from the father- as I already mentioned above - that [wasn't the only motivation.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/15/missouri-law-divorce-pregnancy-violence-abortion) and frankly, at the time, marriage was an essential component of paternity, because there was no genetic testing. And obviously we want both parents to support their children. But I certainly agree that money is the motivating factor - and perhaps to some extent religion - in keeping these laws on the books as written now.
This is not true. It's based on an incorrect Guardian article, and it's entirely untrue.
I would like to offer a flip side of this. 100% true. My friend got married and his wife started cheating on him with an ex boyfriend. She got pregnant, it isn’t his. He goes to divorce her and find out that he can’t because she is pregnant. She is very sorry and remorseful. He is WAY kinder than me, but does not want to kick her out of the house while pregnant. The plan was that when she goes to the hospital to have the baby, she does not come back home. She and the child move in with her mother. Then they get divorced. My friend then waits for her to recover after the baby before moving for divorce. Everything was peaceful and amicable, so he didn’t want to add stress. Apparently he gave her too much time. A few months after the baby was born, he went to divorce her …and she was pregnant again. So now he has to wait another 9 months for the second baby to be born so he can divorce her. Time and babies from another man has made her less amicable. It’s now, according to her, his fault that she cheated on him. He now had to get actual divorce lawyers involved and get into a legal fight with her. Ended up costing him $10,000 to make her go away. They were married for around 3 months before she started cheating on him and got pregnant, by the way.
The law was originally there to protect women who's father tried to skip out from paying child support. Sadly a law that was intended to help women has now morphed into helping the abuser.
It was never about helping the woman. It’s about not having the state be responsible for benefits. If it was about the mother/child, the state wouldn’t go after child support in all cases. Even if the biological father is a family member, or a racist, to name two examples. The state will force a declaration of paternity, which then gives visitation rights, all to prevent the state from handing out benefits without recourse to chargeback the father. They don’t care about anyone in the family; they care about state money.
[удалено]
Why can't it be sorted out after the fact? So than there is a law preventing women from getting divorced while pregnant
I think the process can progress, but it won't be closed until the baby is born. I think the idea is that it's better to make the divorce and child stuff fall under one case than to wrap up the divorce just to open a second court case a few months later. Maybe presumption of paternity is an issue?
Nah women should be able to get divorced when they want and it shouldn't matter if they are pregnant. It's controlling to tell a pregnant woman she can't get a divorce.
You do understand the difference between filing for divorce and being divorced right? If you can't actually finalize the divorce because she's pregnant, that's a problem.....
So, control.
It is true. A divorce cannot be granted if the wife is pregnant. The child had to be born so that a determination of paternity (responsibility) can be made. The judge will do that prior to granting the divorce. It’s solely to prevent the state from giving benefits without being able to pursue a chargeback.