Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby deserves two parents, even if they aren’t going to stay married.

The woman is only 1/3 of the equation. The needs of the newborn child are the most important part of this decision.

Where did you see that “they” (who is they?) are working on no bank account should be owned by a woman? Link, source?

No and no

So husband is beating the crap out of his pregnant wife and she should stay with him bec in these states women have no rights ? You are sick .

They are republicans wake up they wrote it down. CPAC

🙄 Other posters have pointed out the legal process to you; ridiculous thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend from a state that doesn’t allow pregnant women to be divorced who found out her DH was cheating on her and no longer wanted to be married to her or be a father early during her second trimester. He moved out of their home and moved in with his girlfriend. She couldn’t file for divorce until after the baby was born. It was pretty horrific for her, being stuck in that situation, unable to have any resolution, while her husband was shacked up with the other woman.

I’m not a fan of that law, because I’ve seen how women can be trapped by it. She has a career, money, and family nearby to help her out, but she was still trapped. I can only imagine how much more difficult it is for women who lack resources to be stuck in marriages they don’t want. It can be so much more different to leave when the baby is present. I can see how laws like this could protect women and children back when women were openly treated as inferior to men and earning a decent living as a single mom would’ve been practically impossible. I don’t see how this does anything to protect women now.

Much like child support laws and legal holdings AGAINST men who take paternity tests later on that prove a kid isn’t theirs but are still required to both pay child support and not entitled to be reimbursed for paying to support a kid that isn’t their own—this law is not about protecting men OR women. It’s about making sure a child is given constant support from the earliest possible date,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby deserves two parents, even if they aren’t going to stay married.

The woman is only 1/3 of the equation. The needs of the newborn child are the most important part of this decision.

Where did you see that “they” (who is they?) are working on no bank account should be owned by a woman? Link, source?

You can have two parents without them being married.

And are you really going to argue that a rapist gets to be the second parent because a baby deserves two??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby deserves two parents, even if they aren’t going to stay married.

The woman is only 1/3 of the equation. The needs of the newborn child are the most important part of this decision.

Where did you see that “they” (who is they?) are working on no bank account should be owned by a woman? Link, source?

No and no

So husband is beating the crap out of his pregnant wife and she should stay with him bec in these states women have no rights ? You are sick .

They are republicans wake up they wrote it down. CPAC

🙄 Other posters have pointed out the legal process to you; ridiculous thread.

+1

[Anonymous]

I never married, since I didn’t have a legal or religious reason to get married. Paternity was established with paperwork we signed at the hospital, the day after I gave birth. No marriage needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three other states have similar laws: Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. While a couple can still file for divorce in Missouri, the court must wait until after a woman gives birth in order to finalize child custody and child support.

Wonderful for domestic violence no exceptions

And they are now working on no bank accounts should be owned by women

Vote red as a female brain dead

“If it becomes necessary to seek child support, a finding of paternity creates the basis for the obligation to provide support. A support order cannot be established for a child who is born to unmarried parents until paternity has been established.”

Oh okay, so essentially just trying to make child support and paternity easier to establish…

You’re stating this new law in the way that frames women as completely subservient to their husbands.

Like..umm… if a woman is in a marriage with an abusive husband… its not as though.l divorce is… instant. It normally takes time especially if contested.

I thought DCUM was educated? Your take on this is ridiculously kneejerk, shortsighted, lacking critical thinking, and just flat out dumb.

Why can’t that be the woman’s choice? Maybe the husband isn’t the father. What about in those instances? She still can’t divorce? Ridiculous. It treats women like children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a feminist and Dem but I think you’re misstating this. You can stilll separate and get an interim support order. The divorce isn’t finalized until after the birth in order to apply the paternity presumption. Without that, you’d need a paternity test which the father could fight and drag out. This really seems to me like not that big a deal. In Maryland it takes a year of separation anyway so that would get you until the birth.

Oh now you’re “a feminist and Dem” as you push the misogynist talking points? Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby deserves two parents, even if they aren’t going to stay married.

The woman is only 1/3 of the equation. The needs of the newborn child are the most important part of this decision.

Where did you see that “they” (who is they?) are working on no bank account should be owned by a woman? Link, source?

You can have two parents without them being married.

And are you really going to argue that a rapist gets to be the second parent because a baby deserves two??

As I have said: the cruelty is the point. The Republican Party is going out of its way to be cruel to women. It splashes over onto families, but the point is to be as sadistic as possible to women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

Just as a factual matter that term refers to children who are conceived out of wedlock. Not to children who were conceived during wedlock and whose parents have since divorced. Or half of all adults walking right now would be illegitimate. Jeez. And dumb. And sooo dark ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. That is an artificial construct. Shame on you for using that retrograde term. One that has no basis in law.

Just as a factual matter that term refers to children who are conceived out of wedlock. Not to children who were conceived during wedlock and whose parents have since divorced. Or half of all adults walking right now would be illegitimate. Jeez. And dumb. And sooo dark ages.

It’s not a legal term. Just like bastard and love child are not. It’s retrograde and not used anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three other states have similar laws: Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. While a couple can still file for divorce in Missouri, the court must wait until after a woman gives birth in order to finalize child custody and child support.

Wonderful for domestic violence no exceptions

And they are now working on no bank accounts should be owned by women

Vote red as a female brain dead

There is a lot going on here with zero links and no context. Makes me think this is pure hyperbole.

Since you didn't link the law, what does it say exactly? That a couple can get a divorce, but that custody and child support will not be implemented until after said child is born?

Because that makes perfect sense.

If a fetus is just a clump of cell until birth, why would there be a custody schedule or clump-of-cell-support prior to that?

And for the love of god, no one takes you seriously when saying that women can't have bank accounts FFS.

[Anonymous]

If a child is conceived in wedlock why does it matter if the parents are divorced when it is born with regards to the birth certificate and child support? If the husband contests paternity he can contest it after the birth with a paternity test. Being legally married or not doesn’t change the ability to do that. There’s no reason not to be able to put the father on the certificate if the parents divorce two months before birth. How would that affect it? There’s still documentation the parents were a couple at the time of conception.

[jsteele]

Someone reported the original post as being false. The "factcheck" article that to which you linked was two years old. Here is a newer article:

https://fox4kc.com/news/missouri-law-says-pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

It's like these posters don't even live in the US. You can get divorced and still be the father on a birth certificate and also be a coparent.

So now you want the baby to be "co-parented" by a rapist/violent wife beater?