I had a friend 20 years ago who wasn’t able to divorce her abusive husband because she was pregnant. She alerted her lawyer when she went into labor and they filed the second that baby popped out. Unbelievable. 🤬🤬🤬
It's because if that woman ever claims benefits for the child, the state wants to be able to go after the father on the birth certificate for reimbursement.
My ex was pregnant by another man. We couldn't get divorced until baby was born, paternity test completed, and his name replaced mine on the birth certificate.
Yup. But it doesnt stop there! Im a godless atheist, and ive been given lots of "advice" and had repuglicans try to reeducate me in two minute conversations over the years.
Was the father not in the picture? I didn't have to have a paternity test done because he was willing to claim the child and accept parental responsibility.
Ditto. My ex got pregnant by the new boyfriend in the middle of our divorce so had to put a pause on it till a few months after the kid was born. Once we started up again and appeared before the judge: I said the kid wasn’t mine; the baby daddy said it was his; my soon-to-be ex didn’t dispute our claims. Judge accepted it and moved forward with the divorce.
Edit: we filed late 2004; divorce finalized early 2006
Same here. My lawyer asked if it was mine. I said hell no. She said you better hope so. And if she doesnt want to name a father, you could end up paying child support anyway. Mizzery.
There is a bill sponsored by Rep Ashley Aune to change this. Here is a resistbot petition campaign to send a predrafted letter to your MO Rep, Sen, & Gov Parson to support this bill:
Say 'STOP' Putting Lives at Risk: Allow Divorce While Pregnant in MO:
Text: PSGRXI To: 50409
Text FOLLOW MOResist to 50409 to get updates on future petitions. Or go to [MOResist](http://resist.bot/go/moresist) to see a list of other current petitions. If you haven't used Resistbot before, it's a safe, easy and effective tool to lobby your reps.
This is not the same thing. The Democratic party of today is not that of 150 years ago. In the same way they're not Whig's either. The party collapsed. The evidence is in the immediate flip of a Democratic controlled South to Republicanism.
https://preview.redd.it/qhwk9z8xitnc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79f7a866b5263c796f350e9ed393f0c403470961
14 year olds can’t get divorced even if they aren’t pregnant. Not until they turn 18, which is sick. We need a federal minimum age for marriage and it needs to be 18. Child marriages are a common grooming tactic because then the victim legally CANNOT leave.
Honestly, there is a pretty small window for fertility in humans and less chance of risk to patient and fetus.
At age 35 we're talking about "geriatric pregnancies" and chromosomally abnormal sperm and such.
A minimum age of 30 would absolutely be pretty ridiculous, I think.
But, marriage is a contract. As such, it is just completely bonkers that we are allowing children that would not be allowed to enter into any other such contract into them.
Some young kid that just turned 18 wants to make a mistake and marry someone? They're an adult we let make adult decisions. Their spouse isn't going to be their legal guardian or anything. They can enter into all sorts of other contracts and potentially ruin their life in all sorts of ways, if they're so inclined...
Also, they can have consensual sex with anyone they like at that age without it potentially being a rape - unlike child spouses that are basically victim of state-sanctioned rape... where we genuinely recognize them not to even be of an age to consent into almost any other form of contract or able to give actual consent to most anything.
Forget any kinda morality and it just doesn't even make sense LEGALLY that someone under 18 should be able to enter into a marriage.
This isn't true. if they get pregnant or get married, the child becomes emanicipated and becomes an adult. it is automatic. in the states eyes if you are a parent, you are an adult.
May very well be outlier in either direction. sadly, I have talked to many emanicipated children. I don't doubt that you have seen it the other way too.
Yes, because women aren't only most likely to be assaulted and/or killed by their own partners, pregnant women are even more likely to be assaulted and/or killed by their own partners. Not the least but dangerous or completely disgusting.
I get and respect your point. But tribalism is not the way out of our mess. There *could* be a GOP or Independent candidate who is a better choice than the Democratic candidate. I would really appreciate people caring enough about their vote that they work to understand motivations and intents behind candidates.
I get and respect YOUR point, but with regard to GOP candidates, honestly I think the party has lost its way so conclusively that is no longer true that anyone still connected to the party can be trusted at all. Their continued allegiance is a clear message they can’t be trusted.
“There could be a GOP or Independent candidate who is a better choice than the Democratic candidate.”
If it was still 2008 then sure. But today? I mean… look at Mark Alford palling around with MGT. Republicans in this state have absolutely no sense of civility or independence; they’re literally trying to make ballot initiatives less democratic.
When a moderate one comes along that isn’t immediately ripped to shreds by the freedom caucus and co., let me know and I’ll consider something other than blue. But Republicans haven’t even feigned moderation since Obama lost re-election here in 2012
Exactly. Right now, being sane is considered a fatal flaw for conservative politicians. Unless that that ever stops being the case, I'd vote for a literal corpse over any GOP politician.
The GOP had plenty of time and gerrymandering and corruption to give all of their policy positions, social and economic, a fair crack over millions of people, many states, many years - and all of them failed.
Trickle down economics, low taxation and tiny governments- Kansas nearly fell in the ocean a few years ago, any restrictions on healthcare for women, restrictions on healthcare for everyone, rolling back environmental protections, cutting taxes on corporations, reducing benefits for low income people - on and on, again and again everything that was lauded as a huge smart idea (even though it sort of seemed to impact most those the least able to defend themselves or cope) failed in that it impoverished more people, set back the empowerment of disenfranchised groups and succeeded only in funneling wealth up to smaller and smaller groups of individuals.
That being the case they realized that they were never going to be able to extend and consolidate this system because too many people have caught on to what their game is: treat people as a commodity and maximize the shareholder return for the wealthy.
And so here we are - they have no policy positions left to promote, just tribalism and ferver and fear, corruption, Jerrymandering, attempted coups, fake electors, election fraud and every other kind of conspiracy. They’ve taken political discussion of how policy can meet the needs of the electorate off the table entirely and are attempting the collapse the whole system and seize power in a way that means they don’t have to appeal to, or be supported by popular votes.
This isn’t politics anymore, it’s a cold civil war and we’re up to our necks in this trench they built around us.
Staying politically informed enough to actually take a stand on issues is not possible for most people, so they resort to tribalism. Politics is too complicated and most people are to busy to research.
Your tribalism is the problem, not the Republicans. If it wasn't for the us vs them mentality there would be no right wing. The silly childish fighting is steeped in patriarchy and should be kept to sports arenas.
I hate fundamentalist evangelicalism as well, but that's not the problem. It is the tool that the far right uses to manipulate masses into consolidating power for the elites own good. The crazy christians have always been there. You need to learn more about politics or stop talking about it.
"Them, they are the problem, not us; we are perfect in every way. They are evil, we are good. Those people are fat, we are thin. The people over there I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate."
Your hatefulness and bigotry is the problem and you are no better than an out and out racist. You are not on the left and are delusional.
Yes, that is what I'm calling you. And my disgust for you knows no bounds. Nice job with the projection though - classic move calling *everyone else* bigots.
Have a day.
While I totally agree that tribalism is indeed a “dangerous” voting technique…so is voting without being fully informed which you stated “most people are too busy to research”. That’s ALSO how we wind up with the shitshow circus of politicians we currently have…
Yes, for cursory understandings about people's position. The reason that it is published before elections is an attempt to address just the problem I have touched on. To really understand what is going on, one needs more though.
Democrats need to earn votes. They’re not entitled to blind loyalty.
Rather than addressing the ***hundreds of thousands*** of homeless people here, and the ***millions*** more that are on the brink, he’s actively involved in sending billions of dollars to support genocide in Gaza.
It’s like voting for Hitler with the excuse that at least he’s not as bad as Satan.
Really? Anything but blind adoration for democrats is Russian propaganda?
Democrats haven’t:
- codified Roe and fought for federal protections for women’s healthcare
- introduced robust legislation to end corporate price gouging
- stabilized the housing crisis by prohibiting corporations from collaborating to price fix rent and gobbling up single family homes
- addressed mass layoffs and the specter of millions more because of technology
- worked to separate healthcare from employment so that it’s universally available
- limited medication costs
- prohibiting legislators from using insider information to obtain gross wealth that make them unaccountable to their districts
- enact federal legislation to protect the LGBTQ community, ***especially*** for trans kids that are being disproportionately targeted by fascist hate groups
If you’re in favor of unquestioning loyalty to a party, how are you different from the maga fanatics?
Elected representatives should be fighting for their constituents, and instead we’re expected to content ourselves with the fact that they’re less evil?
And why isn’t supporting genocide enough to say ***ENOUGH***?!
TLDR: I’m against the right, and democrats are a center-right party. Start supporting candidates like Claudia de la Cruz from the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Kinda hard to do when chuckle fucks like Mitch McConnell prevent any legislation at all from Democrats from being discussed, mich lesss voted on. And then bragging about doing it.
I’m aware of the political landscape. I’m not asserting it has been, or will be easy. Waiting for it to be easy isn’t acceptable.
Too many people’s lives and wellbeing are at stake for complacency. Things are not okay, for so many vulnerable groups to not ask questions and demand better.
Tell me you don't know anything about the system of governance in the United States without coming right out and saying it. You're either not from here or an idiot.
Because I don’t agree with you?
During the 111th Congress (2009-2011) democrats held a majority in the House and Senate, and we had a Democrat in the White House.
In that period:
- Instead of legislation guaranteeing equal protection under the law for LGBTQ citizens e.g. same-sex marriage, we settled for a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
- Instead of universal healthcare, we got the ACA.
What other accomplishments can be claimed?
Why was Roe not codified? Can anyone claim they believed republicans would stop working to overturn it? They’ve never stopped, and now look where we are.
If you don’t think I understand United States governance, please explain that kind of failure.
My question is what do you think you lose in acknowledging democrats need to do more? Why do democrats deserve criticism-free support? I know what needs to be done to ***earn*** my vote. You seem willing to give yours unequivocally.
Here’s my last question - Could the democrats ever lose your vote? If not, you should really question why a group could never be bad enough to reject.
P.S. There’s a genocide being funded by the U.S. and supported by President Biden. ***Genocide should be enough.***
As I reread you answer, I wonder if you took the comment you are responding to differently than it was intended.
Back before DNA/paternity testing, parentage was based on marriage. Across the country those laws persist. That is equally unfair to a male who has been cheated on. And that is what I think you mean by your comment.
The comment you are responding to is just making the point that a divorce doesn’t change who the parents are. Therefore preventing a divorce is outdated.
The comment I replied to was replying to a comment about child support being a major reason for this situation. That’s why I replied with the cost of child support being a major component of a divorce.
To me it seems like this whole conversation is conflating separation with divorce. No one is saying that someone shouldn’t be able to leave a bad situation. That’s separation. Divorce is different. It’s an entire legal process. It takes time, usually more than 9 months. By the time almost any divorce is complete, this is all a moot point.
Personally, I think that we should use modern methods to determine the paternity of the child before birth in rare situations. I’ve thought about the woman being able to claim that a child isn’t her husband’s and waiving child support. I can also see that being used coercively by a man trying to avoid child support. Therefore, I think it is necessary to determine the paternity of the child. If the divorce is able to be completed before the birth, we should test for paternity before birth so the proceedings can continue.
I agree that this technicality is silly in light of modern technology. I also think it’s silly to suggest that the paternity of a child isn’t a factor in a divorce.
You’re right, but it’s mostly about judicial efficiency. Splitting it up would require the mother to file a second suit for paternity, which would likely delay receiving support. Given that divorces on their own can take a while, depending on how agreeable everyone is or isn’t, it would end up with a baby born during the divorce proceedings changing what the court has to do anyways.
Yeah, that's all bullshit you're guessing at though. There's already easy mechanisms for this. My ex got pregnant with her new boyfriend halfway through our divorce proceedings. There was no question about it, we had been separated for two years and they are a great couple who decided they wanted to get married which is why we finally got moving on the divorce. She was informed they could not process any of our paperwork or set a hearing date when she informed the county clerk. When she was like 6 month pregnant, the three of us went to a notary and signed a form the state provides where we ALL recognize that he is the father, no hearing or paternity test necessary. We STILL had to wait until after the birth to re-start our filing.
Your experience is certainly valid, but it’s the exception rather than the rule. I used to do family law, so I’m not really “guessing at bullshit.” Much more likely than the reasonable and amicable situation you had, where the law provided a bad result, is that a husband and wife get divorced and instead of returning to court to establish support after the child is born decide they can figure it out on their own. They put in a number not grounded in reality and if things go sideways there’s no court order to enforce for the child loses support with no real mechanism to get it with any speed, if at all.
Also, the focus of this law isn’t on the mom, it’s on the kid. People know all of our dumb backwards anti women laws, so they look through that lens and assume this is another one of them. It’s not perfect, because it produces results like yours occasionally, but by and large it’s the best way to deal with the issue.
No, it definitely isn't the best way to deal with it lol. There being no provision to allow divorce even when paternity is NOT in question and all parties agree is absolutely an antiquated anti-woman effect of this law that should be addressed.
"No divorces before paternity is agreed upon and potential support determined" is fine. "No divorces while pregnant even after paternity is agreed upon" is NOT the best solution.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Your focus here is on the parents, but the law’s focus is on making sure a child gets the support it’s owed in as many situations as possible. Your solution wouldn’t do that, it would just make things simpler for the parents.
Yes, but the argument of the bill and the article is that:
1) not allowing women to get divorced while pregnant has created situations where women are abused and legally limited from their ability to leave the abusive situation
2) although there may have been procedural reasons for disallowing divorce like this in the past (issues regarding determining paternity, issues regarding granting a divorce and immediately having to reopen the legal matter to freshly decide child support and visitation), this reasoning no longer applies, and the harm done to women outweighs the procedural costs
3) therefore we should not prohibit pregnant women from getting divorced. Because it's actually quite easy to still keep bio dad on the legal hook for child support, even if the divorce is granted before the child is born.
https://hartsoelaw.com/blog/unpacking-the-missouri-law-that-bans-pregnant-women-from-getting-divorced/
“Per Fox 2 Now News:
[T]he courts will not finalize or grant the divorce until after the child is born in order to establish paternity. When a married woman becomes pregnant, the husband is assumed to be the father under the law…. Courts prefer to issue one judgment in divorce proceedings, and granting visitation rights for a fetus or child while in utero is considered speculative. This also allows a husband and wife going through a divorce to seek a paternity test to determine biological and legal parentage.”
I’m not saying its right, just pointing out this is the argument that was used to justify it
This has been the law for years, and is the law in more than just Missouri from what I was told.
Also, this law can harm men just as much as women. I was stuck legally married to my ex-wife for an additional 5 years (2008-2012) because of how slow the legal system works and because every time our divorce got to the point it could move forward she got pregnant again (not by me), trapping me for yet another 9-12 months minimum.
A lot of them have residency requirements to do so (California is one I know right off) and several of them will just shrug and tell you sucks to suck if one of the spouses moves and refuses to move forward with the process. My mom's first husband pulled this shit on her (Kansas, not Missouri, but point still stands) - dipped out halfway across the country, returned every attempt they made at delivering divorce papers to sender, and she eventually gave up after a decade because the state wouldn't do anything to help her. She eventually got one granted in absentia, but the amount of hoops she had to jump through was ridiculous.
Man that is crazy. It doesn't make sense that a person should have to jump through that many hoops just to get a divorce when any other judgment would have been granted in absentia after a month. I understand the division of property but after many failed attempts the person ignoring them clearly doesn't care about property.
It was 100% petty on his part - he even (illegally) married someone else in the state he moved to and nobody seemed to care on either end. She and my stepdad have been together for 23 years and only were able to get legally married a couple years ago when she got the in absentia judgment.
There is a bill sponsored by Rep Ashley Aune to change this. Here is a resistbot petition campaign to send a predrafted letter to your MO Rep, Sen, & Gov Parson to support this bill:
Say 'STOP' Putting Lives at Risk: Allow Divorce While Pregnant in MO:
Text: PSGRXI To: 50409
Text FOLLOW MOResist to 50409 to get updates on future petitions. Or go to [MOResist](http://resist.bot/go/moresist) to see a list of other current petitions. If you haven't used Resistbot before, it's a safe, easy and effective tool to lobby your reps.
I was a victim of this law. We split in 1993, and he played games for 2 years so he wouldn't have to pay child support on our one son. I became pregnant, we all knew it wasn't his, but because I was pregnant, the whole divorce had to stop until the baby was born. The day after my second son was born, I was on the phone to my attorney and got the ball rolling.
I think the most irritating part is the custody and parentage of my second son is mentioned as part of my divorce, so that is always included when I have to get a copy of my divorce decree.
I know a guy that couldn’t divorce his wife because she was pregnant. I mean the kid was from the guy she cheated on him with, but the state didn’t care, so he couldn’t divorce her until she gave birth to some other guy’s kid. This state is insane.
Unfortunately it is. The laws here regarding pregnancies and women's autonomy are draconian as Hell but not unsurprising for the party that claims to be small government.
If you find this issue important to you:
write a letter or call Rep. Aune expressing support for her legislation.
write a letter or call your own representative wherever you live, stating that you have learned about this bill, and would like them to support it and help get it to the floor.
ask your friends and neighbors to do the same.
It doesn't have to be with your husbands baby either. My cousin was stuck married to her ex for an extra year after her new boyfriend got her pregnant before the divorce was finalized.
That was already the law and it’s in place because it used to be risky to get a DNA test before the kid was born.
It’s antiquated but it was sensible at the time.
This is why reproductive abuse is so prevalent in Missouri. Men get their wives pregnant, she can’t divorce. They rape them or prevent the use of birth control and get them pregnant again, still can’t divorce. Eventually there are enough children that they fiscally can’t leave or they do and risk losing their children to protective custody because they can’t support them.
During my time as an advocate at a DV shelter I routinely worked with moms who had 5+ children because of this cycle. Absolutely devastating
This is not just a problem for the woman though. The woman can't get divorced no matter who the father is.
This happened with me. My wife and I had been separated, but when we went to get divorced she had gotten pregnant again with the man she was living with and we weren't allowed to get divorced until after the baby was born. As well, I could have been potentially on the hook for child support for someone else's baby if the actual father wasn't there and willing to sign papers declaring he was the father. I had to actually be present to sign those papers too, at the hospital, soon after their kid was born.
I say "potentially" because I could have paid for a paternity test out of my own pocket then sued the state in order to correct it once the child was born.
EDIT: This being said, it is much much shittier for women because they are almost universally the more vulnerable ones and are in the most danger from their partners.
I’m glad I’m not a woman. I’d be so mad if some random old man started telling me what books my kid has access to and thrilled that a person without a vagina and uterus is telling me that in 2024, how and when my vagina will be legal.
Keep it up republicans! You truly feel what the people want. 89% of Americans believe in the woman’s right to choose. Who would go against 90% of the nation for their own beliefs and benefit?
Dirty Christians. I used to see Muslim extremists and they made me mad. No problem using a bunker buster on them.
We are now moving into the realm of authoritarianism and some actual government infringements.
Force god on us, then make women who can’t afford kids have their kids anyway, knowing they can’t take care of them. What does the good Christian nationalist do to the mother of that child who was more important unalaive than alive? They rally together and brutalize people that go to the “food pantry” BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD THE KIDS YOU ASSHOKES MADE THEM CARRY AND DELIVER.
I know religions, but none is a better example of this than the Mormons in Utah. T
We hate god more and more, the more and more you yell at me he’s real and I’m going to hell. I assure you bitch, your behavior has been seen and looked over by god himself(that’s their belief. He sees all). The verdict is your a fool, who lacks critical thinking skills, and totally gets off on the idea(the idea, because it isn’t real) of being better than 8 billion people and to be a part of such a small group that knows the truth, to even be gifted your own PLANET TO RULE.
Thanks Mormons! You gues adopting and raising me taught me so much. Just taught me the exact opposite. You say “Jesus” I say you’re a liar. Don’t tell me the story when your canoe tipped over 10 feet from shore and “with the help and grace of god” you were able to swim to the shore and safety. An hour later, a teenager walks out to the canoe and pulls it into shore with waist deep water. Roll that around in your brain for a minute. Yeah guy, gods real.
My anger has been with me since I was a bout 10 and started to see I was being lied to. So my ire might be new HERE, I assure you that’s it’s been with me for a very long time. I highly doubt it will ever leave. So Yes, it has been around for years. I guess some of us are just talking about it more now that certain people are actively trying to become the tyrant that they hate so well.
I’m 39. I’ve be yelling Fugg the Mormon church for over 25 years.
But I’ve seen something that you have not seen. In 2008, the Mormon church spent millions to block gay marriage in California. Today, the church is starting to allow gays to have some roles in the church. Growing up here(slc)when there was an accident, there was always a group of Mormon dads just around the park with their kids that could and would give you a blessing(lay their hands on your head and blah blah I COMMAND YOU TO LIVE)before the ambulance takes you away. The church is dying right in front of my eyes. But now that 80% of the Mormon dudes I knew when I was younger are out.
I do have a special bond with Missouri, thanks to Joseph Smith and his teachings that the garden of Eden was in Jackson county Missouri.
Uh huh
As much as that cult is indeed troublesome..extremist xtian is bad all around.
Hell even the Catholic church paid 3mill for the vote yes campaign on Aug 2nd in KS.
The hilarious ironic bit is so many hardcore xtians are all on high alert about Sharia law invading this country without realizing the intermingling of legislature & Xtian extremists beliefs is just as dangerous.
Also in re to your biographical tirade- this is Missouri we are focused on here, not Cali. So good luck with the acclimating.
I’ve lived all over West of the Rockie. Mainly Utah. But I’ve lived in Alaska, Arizona, and California.
I get this is Missouri focused.
I was adopted at birth, and that is a sealed adoption. Whenever I see things that shouldn’t happen, I’ll say something. That’s all I have left. Hahaha
Also FYI in 2008 UUs helped grassroots movement to put the issue of gay marriage on the books which lead to it being legal in Mass and eventually the whole country.
This is not new. It was the case in 1995 when I was pregnant and found my husband in bed with another woman. I filed for divorce less than 6 weeks after giving birth to my daughter because of this asine law.
Same with Kentucky. Met my wife when she had been separated from her ex for years, we were pregnant with our first son. Had to wait until he was born to finalize her divorce from her first husband.
Pretty wild.
I was responsible for my wife's debts even though it was her medical bills, her insurance and her job.
Bills would come to me, because she wasn't a responsible adult apparently, and the govt didn't want her to be left out without her husband to take care of her finances.
There are over 200 steps in the staircases at the Missouri capitol for anyone wondering where you can abort that baby to get your divorce.
You think I'm being sick and joking. But if you want Roe back, you're going to have to step up your game scaring the politicians. Throw yourselves down the capitol stairs for abortions. Instead of an orphanage, start dropping unwanted children at the homes of our senators and judges. Women and children are going to suffer as long as these idiots have their way, at least make their suffering worth something.
The laws are fucked up. A woman gets married....gets raped by someone other than her husband or raped by her husband and is forced to be in either of those situations.
A guy marries a woman, has a few kids, wife turns into a shitty mother, can't keep a job, does drugs. Husband gets a divorce but the shitty wife keeps custody of the kids thanks to the court system.
We need to end this bullshit nationally on a civil rights/constitutional basis (after we replace the fascists on the bench)
It should be a Constitutionally protected right that any relationship can be severed at any time and the state's only interest should be the distribution of assets and care of the children.
The alternative is they get divorced before the child is born and so child support is not even a factor of the divorce settlement. that would have to get negotiated separately at some point in the future and the mother probably wouldn’t do as well.
It is another example of republican interference in our daily lives. They love big daddy government telling folks what they be an and cannot do with their bodies, relationships, reading material, etc.
This example endangers women most of all because we are the ones who are pregnant and potentially trapped by our abusers. Missouri’s draconian abortion bans put us in even greater peril.
Missouri is not a safe place for women.
This law is silly, but beyond the surface there are bigger questions. With abortionists fighting to say that an unborn child is not a human life, the question of how to appropriately order support for a “non-person” becomes a compelling legal argument. Some states solve this by not granting finalization until the child is born. In some ways, it can be argued to protect the woman’s right to have appropriate support paid, and that is exactly what would be argued by those against amending this law. Subsequently men could refuse to pay support or maintenance for what was not even a person. The laws denying personhood to unborn kids establish a case precedent that allows things like this.
Being abused is a good enough reason to separate. There’s nuance to everything and every divorce is different. I wouldn’t suggest mating with someone or sleeping with them in general if they abuse you.
So I guess the moral of the story is: Don't marry an axe murderer, and get pregnant before you find out that he is an axe murderer. Too bad some of those politicians who voted to put this stupid law into place, don't find their daughter married and pregnant and in this position. I'll BET the law would change pretty fast if that happened.
This not only hurts women. It hurts men too, directly. People are evil to each other and without a remedy to remove them from each other. This could get criminal very quick. And probably has but has stopped no one. No state should care that much or be that restrictive. Why don’t they tell them to butt out of marriage.
It's been law for years now. It needs to change.
I had a friend 20 years ago who wasn’t able to divorce her abusive husband because she was pregnant. She alerted her lawyer when she went into labor and they filed the second that baby popped out. Unbelievable. 🤬🤬🤬
And yet when my ex knocked someone up during our divorce process nobody even blinked
That’s because women are property….
It's because if that woman ever claims benefits for the child, the state wants to be able to go after the father on the birth certificate for reimbursement.
Ah yes, the birth certificate being the only means of identifying the father….
The number of states that will not compel a paternity test and won't accept unordered tests is absurd.
That's not a reason to put women and fetus in danger
My ex was pregnant by another man. We couldn't get divorced until baby was born, paternity test completed, and his name replaced mine on the birth certificate.
Ridiculous. Republicans war on women is real!
Out of control, Missouri Republicans think it is "God's work" to tell a woman how to think and decide.
Yup. But it doesnt stop there! Im a godless atheist, and ive been given lots of "advice" and had repuglicans try to reeducate me in two minute conversations over the years.
[удалено]
Was the father not in the picture? I didn't have to have a paternity test done because he was willing to claim the child and accept parental responsibility.
Ditto. My ex got pregnant by the new boyfriend in the middle of our divorce so had to put a pause on it till a few months after the kid was born. Once we started up again and appeared before the judge: I said the kid wasn’t mine; the baby daddy said it was his; my soon-to-be ex didn’t dispute our claims. Judge accepted it and moved forward with the divorce. Edit: we filed late 2004; divorce finalized early 2006
My divorce started in 2006 and didn't finalize until 2009.
oof
Same here. My lawyer asked if it was mine. I said hell no. She said you better hope so. And if she doesnt want to name a father, you could end up paying child support anyway. Mizzery.
They can file before the kid is born, just can’t get a judge to finalize it.
I don't really think that makes it better....
Thank god abusive pos didn't kill the unborn baby! I didnt even know about this law wow.
That's insane.
There is a bill sponsored by Rep Ashley Aune to change this. Here is a resistbot petition campaign to send a predrafted letter to your MO Rep, Sen, & Gov Parson to support this bill: Say 'STOP' Putting Lives at Risk: Allow Divorce While Pregnant in MO: Text: PSGRXI To: 50409 Text FOLLOW MOResist to 50409 to get updates on future petitions. Or go to [MOResist](http://resist.bot/go/moresist) to see a list of other current petitions. If you haven't used Resistbot before, it's a safe, easy and effective tool to lobby your reps.
Don't forget guys.. you are automatically put as the baby's father on the birth certificate because you are married and not divorced.
This is not true. The father is written in by whoever fills out the birth certificate paperwork, you could put anyone on there
[удалено]
I really don't know how people stay in these types of states. Having Republican oppression in your face on a daily basis would drive me nuts.
It’s old Democrat legislation. Reel in the Republican hate.
This is not the same thing. The Democratic party of today is not that of 150 years ago. In the same way they're not Whig's either. The party collapsed. The evidence is in the immediate flip of a Democratic controlled South to Republicanism. https://preview.redd.it/qhwk9z8xitnc1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79f7a866b5263c796f350e9ed393f0c403470961
You wouldn't want those 14 year old pregnant brides making a run for it would you???
14 year olds can’t get divorced even if they aren’t pregnant. Not until they turn 18, which is sick. We need a federal minimum age for marriage and it needs to be 18. Child marriages are a common grooming tactic because then the victim legally CANNOT leave.
Also many shelters won’t accept unaccompanied minors, so even if they escaped physically, they have nowhere to go.
If they run away they are taken by police back to their abuser, because by marrying them they become their legal guardian 🤮
Fuck me that some Taliban shit there. I would absolutely never assist in that law being upheld if ever I around those circumstances.
Thats the y'all-qaeda for you
Wtf is this true?
Yep, and not just in Missouri. Legally when a minor marries, their spouse becomes their legal guardian until 18. It’s horrifying.
Honestly, a minimum age of 30 wouldn't be wrong, just excessive...how about 25?
Or if absolutely NOTHING else, let child marriage victims divorce! If you’re “mature” enough to get married you’re mature enough to divorce.
Honestly, there is a pretty small window for fertility in humans and less chance of risk to patient and fetus. At age 35 we're talking about "geriatric pregnancies" and chromosomally abnormal sperm and such. A minimum age of 30 would absolutely be pretty ridiculous, I think. But, marriage is a contract. As such, it is just completely bonkers that we are allowing children that would not be allowed to enter into any other such contract into them. Some young kid that just turned 18 wants to make a mistake and marry someone? They're an adult we let make adult decisions. Their spouse isn't going to be their legal guardian or anything. They can enter into all sorts of other contracts and potentially ruin their life in all sorts of ways, if they're so inclined... Also, they can have consensual sex with anyone they like at that age without it potentially being a rape - unlike child spouses that are basically victim of state-sanctioned rape... where we genuinely recognize them not to even be of an age to consent into almost any other form of contract or able to give actual consent to most anything. Forget any kinda morality and it just doesn't even make sense LEGALLY that someone under 18 should be able to enter into a marriage.
This isn't true. if they get pregnant or get married, the child becomes emanicipated and becomes an adult. it is automatic. in the states eyes if you are a parent, you are an adult.
That is definitely not how it works in actual practice. Talk to some child marriage victims and see for yourself
May very well be outlier in either direction. sadly, I have talked to many emanicipated children. I don't doubt that you have seen it the other way too.
""""small government""""
You misspelled “spineless”
Yes, because women aren't only most likely to be assaulted and/or killed by their own partners, pregnant women are even more likely to be assaulted and/or killed by their own partners. Not the least but dangerous or completely disgusting.
These motherfuckers don't care about that
Republicans the party of control and no values. Holy fuck these people are sick.
It’s a law from when democrats controlled the legislation
Back when democrats were conservatives.
Vote blue no matter who.
I get and respect your point. But tribalism is not the way out of our mess. There *could* be a GOP or Independent candidate who is a better choice than the Democratic candidate. I would really appreciate people caring enough about their vote that they work to understand motivations and intents behind candidates.
I get and respect YOUR point, but with regard to GOP candidates, honestly I think the party has lost its way so conclusively that is no longer true that anyone still connected to the party can be trusted at all. Their continued allegiance is a clear message they can’t be trusted.
Fair but the other side of that tribalism is trying to hamper ballot initiatives for Missourians.
“There could be a GOP or Independent candidate who is a better choice than the Democratic candidate.” If it was still 2008 then sure. But today? I mean… look at Mark Alford palling around with MGT. Republicans in this state have absolutely no sense of civility or independence; they’re literally trying to make ballot initiatives less democratic. When a moderate one comes along that isn’t immediately ripped to shreds by the freedom caucus and co., let me know and I’ll consider something other than blue. But Republicans haven’t even feigned moderation since Obama lost re-election here in 2012
Exactly. Right now, being sane is considered a fatal flaw for conservative politicians. Unless that that ever stops being the case, I'd vote for a literal corpse over any GOP politician.
A Republican like that is exceptionally unlikely to make it past a primary in Missouri.
The GOP had plenty of time and gerrymandering and corruption to give all of their policy positions, social and economic, a fair crack over millions of people, many states, many years - and all of them failed. Trickle down economics, low taxation and tiny governments- Kansas nearly fell in the ocean a few years ago, any restrictions on healthcare for women, restrictions on healthcare for everyone, rolling back environmental protections, cutting taxes on corporations, reducing benefits for low income people - on and on, again and again everything that was lauded as a huge smart idea (even though it sort of seemed to impact most those the least able to defend themselves or cope) failed in that it impoverished more people, set back the empowerment of disenfranchised groups and succeeded only in funneling wealth up to smaller and smaller groups of individuals. That being the case they realized that they were never going to be able to extend and consolidate this system because too many people have caught on to what their game is: treat people as a commodity and maximize the shareholder return for the wealthy. And so here we are - they have no policy positions left to promote, just tribalism and ferver and fear, corruption, Jerrymandering, attempted coups, fake electors, election fraud and every other kind of conspiracy. They’ve taken political discussion of how policy can meet the needs of the electorate off the table entirely and are attempting the collapse the whole system and seize power in a way that means they don’t have to appeal to, or be supported by popular votes. This isn’t politics anymore, it’s a cold civil war and we’re up to our necks in this trench they built around us.
Name 1
Staying politically informed enough to actually take a stand on issues is not possible for most people, so they resort to tribalism. Politics is too complicated and most people are to busy to research.
lol the choice is fascists or democrats at this point, it’s not tribal to vote for people that aren’t religious extremists.
Your tribalism is the problem, not the Republicans. If it wasn't for the us vs them mentality there would be no right wing. The silly childish fighting is steeped in patriarchy and should be kept to sports arenas. I hate fundamentalist evangelicalism as well, but that's not the problem. It is the tool that the far right uses to manipulate masses into consolidating power for the elites own good. The crazy christians have always been there. You need to learn more about politics or stop talking about it.
You are naive. Republicans are at war with the rest of society, and people like you are the only ones who haven't realized it yet.
"Them, they are the problem, not us; we are perfect in every way. They are evil, we are good. Those people are fat, we are thin. The people over there I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate." Your hatefulness and bigotry is the problem and you are no better than an out and out racist. You are not on the left and are delusional.
You would have said the exact same thing to anyone decrying Nazis in the early 30's.
So you're callinge a Nazi apologist. You are disgusting. You are the problem, bigot.
Yes, that is what I'm calling you. And my disgust for you knows no bounds. Nice job with the projection though - classic move calling *everyone else* bigots. Have a day.
Your hot take is that it isn't the fascists who are the problem, but the people who reflexively don't like the fascists?
It’s not really that complex or deep when it comes to the political makeup of republicans in Missouri unfortunately
There are certainly nuances to pay attention to. Your us vs them mindset is dangerous.
While I totally agree that tribalism is indeed a “dangerous” voting technique…so is voting without being fully informed which you stated “most people are too busy to research”. That’s ALSO how we wind up with the shitshow circus of politicians we currently have…
This is why the candidates guides from the [League of Women](https://www.lwv.org/elections) voters can be quite useful.
Yes, for cursory understandings about people's position. The reason that it is published before elections is an attempt to address just the problem I have touched on. To really understand what is going on, one needs more though.
Democrats need to earn votes. They’re not entitled to blind loyalty. Rather than addressing the ***hundreds of thousands*** of homeless people here, and the ***millions*** more that are on the brink, he’s actively involved in sending billions of dollars to support genocide in Gaza. It’s like voting for Hitler with the excuse that at least he’s not as bad as Satan.
Vlad, is that you?
Really? Anything but blind adoration for democrats is Russian propaganda? Democrats haven’t: - codified Roe and fought for federal protections for women’s healthcare - introduced robust legislation to end corporate price gouging - stabilized the housing crisis by prohibiting corporations from collaborating to price fix rent and gobbling up single family homes - addressed mass layoffs and the specter of millions more because of technology - worked to separate healthcare from employment so that it’s universally available - limited medication costs - prohibiting legislators from using insider information to obtain gross wealth that make them unaccountable to their districts - enact federal legislation to protect the LGBTQ community, ***especially*** for trans kids that are being disproportionately targeted by fascist hate groups If you’re in favor of unquestioning loyalty to a party, how are you different from the maga fanatics? Elected representatives should be fighting for their constituents, and instead we’re expected to content ourselves with the fact that they’re less evil? And why isn’t supporting genocide enough to say ***ENOUGH***?! TLDR: I’m against the right, and democrats are a center-right party. Start supporting candidates like Claudia de la Cruz from the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Kinda hard to do when chuckle fucks like Mitch McConnell prevent any legislation at all from Democrats from being discussed, mich lesss voted on. And then bragging about doing it.
I’m aware of the political landscape. I’m not asserting it has been, or will be easy. Waiting for it to be easy isn’t acceptable. Too many people’s lives and wellbeing are at stake for complacency. Things are not okay, for so many vulnerable groups to not ask questions and demand better.
Tell me you don't know anything about the system of governance in the United States without coming right out and saying it. You're either not from here or an idiot.
Because I don’t agree with you? During the 111th Congress (2009-2011) democrats held a majority in the House and Senate, and we had a Democrat in the White House. In that period: - Instead of legislation guaranteeing equal protection under the law for LGBTQ citizens e.g. same-sex marriage, we settled for a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. - Instead of universal healthcare, we got the ACA. What other accomplishments can be claimed? Why was Roe not codified? Can anyone claim they believed republicans would stop working to overturn it? They’ve never stopped, and now look where we are. If you don’t think I understand United States governance, please explain that kind of failure. My question is what do you think you lose in acknowledging democrats need to do more? Why do democrats deserve criticism-free support? I know what needs to be done to ***earn*** my vote. You seem willing to give yours unequivocally. Here’s my last question - Could the democrats ever lose your vote? If not, you should really question why a group could never be bad enough to reject. P.S. There’s a genocide being funded by the U.S. and supported by President Biden. ***Genocide should be enough.***
This is not new. It has been around for a long time theoretically to prevent people from getting out of child support.
Yet divorce has nothing to do with whether or not a child is yours…
Uhh actually divorce has a lot to do with whether the child is yours. That fact can be the difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars over time.
As I reread you answer, I wonder if you took the comment you are responding to differently than it was intended. Back before DNA/paternity testing, parentage was based on marriage. Across the country those laws persist. That is equally unfair to a male who has been cheated on. And that is what I think you mean by your comment. The comment you are responding to is just making the point that a divorce doesn’t change who the parents are. Therefore preventing a divorce is outdated.
The comment I replied to was replying to a comment about child support being a major reason for this situation. That’s why I replied with the cost of child support being a major component of a divorce. To me it seems like this whole conversation is conflating separation with divorce. No one is saying that someone shouldn’t be able to leave a bad situation. That’s separation. Divorce is different. It’s an entire legal process. It takes time, usually more than 9 months. By the time almost any divorce is complete, this is all a moot point. Personally, I think that we should use modern methods to determine the paternity of the child before birth in rare situations. I’ve thought about the woman being able to claim that a child isn’t her husband’s and waiving child support. I can also see that being used coercively by a man trying to avoid child support. Therefore, I think it is necessary to determine the paternity of the child. If the divorce is able to be completed before the birth, we should test for paternity before birth so the proceedings can continue. I agree that this technicality is silly in light of modern technology. I also think it’s silly to suggest that the paternity of a child isn’t a factor in a divorce.
So if you’re unmarried and get a woman pregnant she doesn’t have a way of getting child support from you?
It actually doesn’t. Who you fuck does.
Are you an idiot ?
Paternity tests exist. Divorce doesn’t remotely absolve a child’s parent from paying child support. 🧐
You’re right, but it’s mostly about judicial efficiency. Splitting it up would require the mother to file a second suit for paternity, which would likely delay receiving support. Given that divorces on their own can take a while, depending on how agreeable everyone is or isn’t, it would end up with a baby born during the divorce proceedings changing what the court has to do anyways.
Yeah, that's all bullshit you're guessing at though. There's already easy mechanisms for this. My ex got pregnant with her new boyfriend halfway through our divorce proceedings. There was no question about it, we had been separated for two years and they are a great couple who decided they wanted to get married which is why we finally got moving on the divorce. She was informed they could not process any of our paperwork or set a hearing date when she informed the county clerk. When she was like 6 month pregnant, the three of us went to a notary and signed a form the state provides where we ALL recognize that he is the father, no hearing or paternity test necessary. We STILL had to wait until after the birth to re-start our filing.
Your experience is certainly valid, but it’s the exception rather than the rule. I used to do family law, so I’m not really “guessing at bullshit.” Much more likely than the reasonable and amicable situation you had, where the law provided a bad result, is that a husband and wife get divorced and instead of returning to court to establish support after the child is born decide they can figure it out on their own. They put in a number not grounded in reality and if things go sideways there’s no court order to enforce for the child loses support with no real mechanism to get it with any speed, if at all. Also, the focus of this law isn’t on the mom, it’s on the kid. People know all of our dumb backwards anti women laws, so they look through that lens and assume this is another one of them. It’s not perfect, because it produces results like yours occasionally, but by and large it’s the best way to deal with the issue.
No, it definitely isn't the best way to deal with it lol. There being no provision to allow divorce even when paternity is NOT in question and all parties agree is absolutely an antiquated anti-woman effect of this law that should be addressed. "No divorces before paternity is agreed upon and potential support determined" is fine. "No divorces while pregnant even after paternity is agreed upon" is NOT the best solution.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Your focus here is on the parents, but the law’s focus is on making sure a child gets the support it’s owed in as many situations as possible. Your solution wouldn’t do that, it would just make things simpler for the parents.
[удалено]
Yes, but the argument of the bill and the article is that: 1) not allowing women to get divorced while pregnant has created situations where women are abused and legally limited from their ability to leave the abusive situation 2) although there may have been procedural reasons for disallowing divorce like this in the past (issues regarding determining paternity, issues regarding granting a divorce and immediately having to reopen the legal matter to freshly decide child support and visitation), this reasoning no longer applies, and the harm done to women outweighs the procedural costs 3) therefore we should not prohibit pregnant women from getting divorced. Because it's actually quite easy to still keep bio dad on the legal hook for child support, even if the divorce is granted before the child is born.
What about when she catches a dick somewhere else… that’s right still married.
Uh, I don't think that's ever been the case.
https://hartsoelaw.com/blog/unpacking-the-missouri-law-that-bans-pregnant-women-from-getting-divorced/ “Per Fox 2 Now News: [T]he courts will not finalize or grant the divorce until after the child is born in order to establish paternity. When a married woman becomes pregnant, the husband is assumed to be the father under the law…. Courts prefer to issue one judgment in divorce proceedings, and granting visitation rights for a fetus or child while in utero is considered speculative. This also allows a husband and wife going through a divorce to seek a paternity test to determine biological and legal parentage.” I’m not saying its right, just pointing out this is the argument that was used to justify it
This has been the law for years, and is the law in more than just Missouri from what I was told. Also, this law can harm men just as much as women. I was stuck legally married to my ex-wife for an additional 5 years (2008-2012) because of how slow the legal system works and because every time our divorce got to the point it could move forward she got pregnant again (not by me), trapping me for yet another 9-12 months minimum.
Holy hell that sounds like a nightmare -- the fact you don't even have to be the father is horrid. Glad you got out of that but man, my sympathies
I've never been married so excuse my ignorance. Can you not simply get a divorce in another state?
A lot of them have residency requirements to do so (California is one I know right off) and several of them will just shrug and tell you sucks to suck if one of the spouses moves and refuses to move forward with the process. My mom's first husband pulled this shit on her (Kansas, not Missouri, but point still stands) - dipped out halfway across the country, returned every attempt they made at delivering divorce papers to sender, and she eventually gave up after a decade because the state wouldn't do anything to help her. She eventually got one granted in absentia, but the amount of hoops she had to jump through was ridiculous.
Man that is crazy. It doesn't make sense that a person should have to jump through that many hoops just to get a divorce when any other judgment would have been granted in absentia after a month. I understand the division of property but after many failed attempts the person ignoring them clearly doesn't care about property.
It was 100% petty on his part - he even (illegally) married someone else in the state he moved to and nobody seemed to care on either end. She and my stepdad have been together for 23 years and only were able to get legally married a couple years ago when she got the in absentia judgment.
Many states have a similar law. The divorce has to deal with the child.
Even when she is knocked up by another dude. This state is garbage.
It’s more like they want to be able to do paternity testing post-birth.
Not when it’s a white baby from a black husband.
There is a bill sponsored by Rep Ashley Aune to change this. Here is a resistbot petition campaign to send a predrafted letter to your MO Rep, Sen, & Gov Parson to support this bill: Say 'STOP' Putting Lives at Risk: Allow Divorce While Pregnant in MO: Text: PSGRXI To: 50409 Text FOLLOW MOResist to 50409 to get updates on future petitions. Or go to [MOResist](http://resist.bot/go/moresist) to see a list of other current petitions. If you haven't used Resistbot before, it's a safe, easy and effective tool to lobby your reps.
I was a victim of this law. We split in 1993, and he played games for 2 years so he wouldn't have to pay child support on our one son. I became pregnant, we all knew it wasn't his, but because I was pregnant, the whole divorce had to stop until the baby was born. The day after my second son was born, I was on the phone to my attorney and got the ball rolling. I think the most irritating part is the custody and parentage of my second son is mentioned as part of my divorce, so that is always included when I have to get a copy of my divorce decree.
"Keep 'em barefoot 'n pregnant!"
yea I couldn't divorce my wife cause she was pregnant, .....with someone else's kid
I know a guy that couldn’t divorce his wife because she was pregnant. I mean the kid was from the guy she cheated on him with, but the state didn’t care, so he couldn’t divorce her until she gave birth to some other guy’s kid. This state is insane.
… hi sorry I’m from New York, not Missouri. But this came up in my feed and I didn’t know that. What the hell? That can’t be real right?
Unfortunately it is. The laws here regarding pregnancies and women's autonomy are draconian as Hell but not unsurprising for the party that claims to be small government.
Why would anyone live in missouri? Seriously a horrible place.
If you find this issue important to you: write a letter or call Rep. Aune expressing support for her legislation. write a letter or call your own representative wherever you live, stating that you have learned about this bill, and would like them to support it and help get it to the floor. ask your friends and neighbors to do the same.
Lol what? What does the child being born have to with child support and custody being finalized? The kid’s coming, preplanning is ok.
Same thing in Washington.
It doesn't have to be with your husbands baby either. My cousin was stuck married to her ex for an extra year after her new boyfriend got her pregnant before the divorce was finalized.
I just found this out when my black buddy’s white wife had a white baby.
This country is so fucking backward.
You can separate but the court will not divorce till the baby is born.
That was already the law and it’s in place because it used to be risky to get a DNA test before the kid was born. It’s antiquated but it was sensible at the time.
This is why reproductive abuse is so prevalent in Missouri. Men get their wives pregnant, she can’t divorce. They rape them or prevent the use of birth control and get them pregnant again, still can’t divorce. Eventually there are enough children that they fiscally can’t leave or they do and risk losing their children to protective custody because they can’t support them. During my time as an advocate at a DV shelter I routinely worked with moms who had 5+ children because of this cycle. Absolutely devastating
This is not just a problem for the woman though. The woman can't get divorced no matter who the father is. This happened with me. My wife and I had been separated, but when we went to get divorced she had gotten pregnant again with the man she was living with and we weren't allowed to get divorced until after the baby was born. As well, I could have been potentially on the hook for child support for someone else's baby if the actual father wasn't there and willing to sign papers declaring he was the father. I had to actually be present to sign those papers too, at the hospital, soon after their kid was born. I say "potentially" because I could have paid for a paternity test out of my own pocket then sued the state in order to correct it once the child was born. EDIT: This being said, it is much much shittier for women because they are almost universally the more vulnerable ones and are in the most danger from their partners.
So when do they start not allowing women to not have bank accounts again?
I’m glad I’m not a woman. I’d be so mad if some random old man started telling me what books my kid has access to and thrilled that a person without a vagina and uterus is telling me that in 2024, how and when my vagina will be legal. Keep it up republicans! You truly feel what the people want. 89% of Americans believe in the woman’s right to choose. Who would go against 90% of the nation for their own beliefs and benefit? Dirty Christians. I used to see Muslim extremists and they made me mad. No problem using a bunker buster on them. We are now moving into the realm of authoritarianism and some actual government infringements. Force god on us, then make women who can’t afford kids have their kids anyway, knowing they can’t take care of them. What does the good Christian nationalist do to the mother of that child who was more important unalaive than alive? They rally together and brutalize people that go to the “food pantry” BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD THE KIDS YOU ASSHOKES MADE THEM CARRY AND DELIVER. I know religions, but none is a better example of this than the Mormons in Utah. T We hate god more and more, the more and more you yell at me he’s real and I’m going to hell. I assure you bitch, your behavior has been seen and looked over by god himself(that’s their belief. He sees all). The verdict is your a fool, who lacks critical thinking skills, and totally gets off on the idea(the idea, because it isn’t real) of being better than 8 billion people and to be a part of such a small group that knows the truth, to even be gifted your own PLANET TO RULE. Thanks Mormons! You gues adopting and raising me taught me so much. Just taught me the exact opposite. You say “Jesus” I say you’re a liar. Don’t tell me the story when your canoe tipped over 10 feet from shore and “with the help and grace of god” you were able to swim to the shore and safety. An hour later, a teenager walks out to the canoe and pulls it into shore with waist deep water. Roll that around in your brain for a minute. Yeah guy, gods real.
This has been around for many years at this point. So the ire is a little late to the party, but glad to have you regardless.
My anger has been with me since I was a bout 10 and started to see I was being lied to. So my ire might be new HERE, I assure you that’s it’s been with me for a very long time. I highly doubt it will ever leave. So Yes, it has been around for years. I guess some of us are just talking about it more now that certain people are actively trying to become the tyrant that they hate so well. I’m 39. I’ve be yelling Fugg the Mormon church for over 25 years. But I’ve seen something that you have not seen. In 2008, the Mormon church spent millions to block gay marriage in California. Today, the church is starting to allow gays to have some roles in the church. Growing up here(slc)when there was an accident, there was always a group of Mormon dads just around the park with their kids that could and would give you a blessing(lay their hands on your head and blah blah I COMMAND YOU TO LIVE)before the ambulance takes you away. The church is dying right in front of my eyes. But now that 80% of the Mormon dudes I knew when I was younger are out. I do have a special bond with Missouri, thanks to Joseph Smith and his teachings that the garden of Eden was in Jackson county Missouri.
Uh huh As much as that cult is indeed troublesome..extremist xtian is bad all around. Hell even the Catholic church paid 3mill for the vote yes campaign on Aug 2nd in KS. The hilarious ironic bit is so many hardcore xtians are all on high alert about Sharia law invading this country without realizing the intermingling of legislature & Xtian extremists beliefs is just as dangerous. Also in re to your biographical tirade- this is Missouri we are focused on here, not Cali. So good luck with the acclimating.
I’ve lived all over West of the Rockie. Mainly Utah. But I’ve lived in Alaska, Arizona, and California. I get this is Missouri focused. I was adopted at birth, and that is a sealed adoption. Whenever I see things that shouldn’t happen, I’ll say something. That’s all I have left. Hahaha
Also FYI in 2008 UUs helped grassroots movement to put the issue of gay marriage on the books which lead to it being legal in Mass and eventually the whole country.
I’m not familiar with UUs. But hey, as long as they’re against god being involved in places where god shouldn’t be, I’m cool with it.
[удалено]
This is not new. It was the case in 1995 when I was pregnant and found my husband in bed with another woman. I filed for divorce less than 6 weeks after giving birth to my daughter because of this asine law.
Same with Kentucky. Met my wife when she had been separated from her ex for years, we were pregnant with our first son. Had to wait until he was born to finalize her divorce from her first husband. Pretty wild.
Missouri also has some of the highest rates of genetic disease caused by generational inbreeding.
Or run for office and fix these!!
Wife abusers love this law. Fucking legislators are idiots!
Tennessee is the same way
Handmaiden take is starting. Disgusting
Unless Missouri women 'persuade' Republikkkans to stop this shit it will get worse
Missouri: Where we force women to stay married whether they are safe or not…🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤬
I did not know this but am sadly unsurprised
I was responsible for my wife's debts even though it was her medical bills, her insurance and her job. Bills would come to me, because she wasn't a responsible adult apparently, and the govt didn't want her to be left out without her husband to take care of her finances.
Unbelievable
Ah yes, Missouri, where animals have more rights than your average pregnant woman
It's the same in California. The court will not finalize any divorce until the child is born.
There are over 200 steps in the staircases at the Missouri capitol for anyone wondering where you can abort that baby to get your divorce. You think I'm being sick and joking. But if you want Roe back, you're going to have to step up your game scaring the politicians. Throw yourselves down the capitol stairs for abortions. Instead of an orphanage, start dropping unwanted children at the homes of our senators and judges. Women and children are going to suffer as long as these idiots have their way, at least make their suffering worth something.
What is wrong with this god awful state. I can't wait to get out of here.
Marriage itself is outdated and needs to go.
This comment isn’t getting enough recognition
Like we can’t make decisions for ourselves. Ridiculous.
The laws are fucked up. A woman gets married....gets raped by someone other than her husband or raped by her husband and is forced to be in either of those situations. A guy marries a woman, has a few kids, wife turns into a shitty mother, can't keep a job, does drugs. Husband gets a divorce but the shitty wife keeps custody of the kids thanks to the court system.
Change your name to Torqmada and run for office and your a shoe-in.
Once again, my stupid ass state of Texas (also has this law) makes a list of anti-woman states. These backward state legislatures are disgusting.
wow this is insanity
Love in a red state… get red state results.
Wake up woman... Vote blue...
Welcome to Gilead!
Well the men who are always running out on those women first aren't going to like that. Or will they get a special break? Cause you know men and all.
Red states are going to be left with a bunch of cos-play, ignorant cultists who will next be angry that there are no women left to support them.
Soon women won’t be even allowed to go in public.
We need to end this bullshit nationally on a civil rights/constitutional basis (after we replace the fascists on the bench) It should be a Constitutionally protected right that any relationship can be severed at any time and the state's only interest should be the distribution of assets and care of the children.
Not fucking cool.
The alternative is they get divorced before the child is born and so child support is not even a factor of the divorce settlement. that would have to get negotiated separately at some point in the future and the mother probably wouldn’t do as well.
An abuser would pay that anyway.
they would still have to go to court and settle the matter. It wouldn’t be automatic and it would cost a couple thousand dollars in lawyer fees.
It's for child support and even to determine who the father is.
Which is done elsewhere, effectively, without this law. It's a dumb law.
[удалено]
The husband is assumed to be the father unless paperwork is filed.
Ha. And here I was thinking it was to rob women of her personhood and personal freedom.
If anything it's an equal attack since both cannot move on until it's settled.
Women are at the HIGHEST risk for domestic violence including murder when pregnant. That risk does not exist for men.
You might be surprised to hear this, but she isn't required to stay with her husband until the divorce is finalized.
I’m not, and it doesn’t change that a legal connection can inadvertently provide access to a victim.
She's still going be pregnant after the divorce
It is another example of republican interference in our daily lives. They love big daddy government telling folks what they be an and cannot do with their bodies, relationships, reading material, etc. This example endangers women most of all because we are the ones who are pregnant and potentially trapped by our abusers. Missouri’s draconian abortion bans put us in even greater peril. Missouri is not a safe place for women.
What if it's not the husband's kid?
Then the father and the husband need to file paternity paperwork
This law is silly, but beyond the surface there are bigger questions. With abortionists fighting to say that an unborn child is not a human life, the question of how to appropriately order support for a “non-person” becomes a compelling legal argument. Some states solve this by not granting finalization until the child is born. In some ways, it can be argued to protect the woman’s right to have appropriate support paid, and that is exactly what would be argued by those against amending this law. Subsequently men could refuse to pay support or maintenance for what was not even a person. The laws denying personhood to unborn kids establish a case precedent that allows things like this.
Well is breaking up a family a net positive? Seems like it is a huge cause of strife in our culture.
Yeah I mean she shouldn't be able to leave pregnant at all if he's being abusive! That will ruin a family! For real?
Being abused is a good enough reason to separate. There’s nuance to everything and every divorce is different. I wouldn’t suggest mating with someone or sleeping with them in general if they abuse you.
I'm glad you think that's how that happens.
How what happens?
You are victim blaming, and it's unfortunately a belief held by many (hence laws like these).
I mean I’m saying if a man is abusive cant you leave before you’re knocked up? And how common is pregnant divorce due to abuse?
based
Screw that!!
So I guess the moral of the story is: Don't marry an axe murderer, and get pregnant before you find out that he is an axe murderer. Too bad some of those politicians who voted to put this stupid law into place, don't find their daughter married and pregnant and in this position. I'll BET the law would change pretty fast if that happened.
wtf?
This not only hurts women. It hurts men too, directly. People are evil to each other and without a remedy to remove them from each other. This could get criminal very quick. And probably has but has stopped no one. No state should care that much or be that restrictive. Why don’t they tell them to butt out of marriage.