Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce

[Anonymous]

And no one sees this as a "camel's nose" situation? I recall people blindly accepting that the Dobbs decision to send abortion back to the states didn't mean anything either.

[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.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't that law also mean that men cannot divorce their pregnant wives either? And presumably cannot escape their obligations to support a pregnant wife?

Only women can be victims, duh.

[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.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

This stigma is a religious construct. There is no reason for it other than people like you perpetuating it. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Every woman and girl deserves the right to control her own body.

You need to think about the life of your unborn child; it's not just your own body.

If "the own body' isn't safe and viable, the follow on health of the unborn child is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

I didn't say instantly available, and you are very naive about the often unspoken prejudices in many communities.

Maybe those communities are very toxic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

We are not living in some convent in 1950. NO ONE uses that term (which you DID use). No one asks a person they meet for the dates on their parents' marriage license. Keep up.

PP here. I used it the way it's often used in various communities. I work with kids every day from all kinds of backgrounds whose mothers typically aren't single working moms with the means to support their children. These kids need to be protected from prejudice and have the financial resources to have good lives.

I don't think there is any prejudice against being born out of wedlock any more.

The kids you mention aren't going to have financial resources and good lives instantly available to them because of this new law.

I didn't say instantly available, and you are very naive about the often unspoken prejudices in many communities.

NP. What communities? Do people want to associate with those communities?! I have been happily married to the father of my two teens for 20 years. I wouldn’t want to be around people who would look down upon a child whose parents weren’t married. They seem horribly judgmental and ignorant about life!

I agree with you, but that doesn't change the reality of what I said.

What community thinks like this? Name it or it doesn’t exist.

Most likely southern evangelicals or some other radically conservative religious community.

[Anonymous]

Isn't this really about welfare fraud?
When a married woman gives birth the husband is presumed to be the father. If they later divorce, the father is still required to financially support the child and if the mom goes on welfare, the state can go after the dad for reimbursement. If a woman is not married when she gives birth, she can refuse to name the father and the state will not be able to pursue reimbursement from the father (because they don't know who it is.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. I don't like the term or use it either. Nonetheless, there is often a stigma attached to the birth of children out of wedlock or whatever term you choose to use. Paternity may need to be established through testing. It's unfair to the child.

This stigma is a religious construct. There is no reason for it other than people like you perpetuating it. Just stop.

You can stop making assumptions. I'm not perpetuating anything. I'm sharing what I've encountered in school situations involving parents and teachers of varying backgrounds and not necessarily religious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just pointing out that it is rare for a divorce to be concluded in under five months (which presumably what she has left on the term). Divorce is not instant.

It protects women by definitively resolving paternity to the father and creating a child support obligation.

The state she lived in had a 60 day waiting period, not a year like MD. I never said it was instant, but it didn’t need to take as long as it did. She couldnt even file until after the baby was born, then they were able to start the process. They both wanted out and it got nastier the more it lingered. He blamed her for keeping him from being able to move on because she was pregnant and the divorce couldn’t happen on his timeline, so he was pretty angry when the baby was born.

Also, you don’t have to be married to establish paternity or get child support and custody. That’s such a silly reason to say someone has to remain married. It’s not a good reason to take choices away from people, especially women during such a vulnerable time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just pointing out that it is rare for a divorce to be concluded in under five months (which presumably what she has left on the term). Divorce is not instant.

It protects women by definitively resolving paternity to the father and creating a child support obligation.

The state she lived in had a 60 day waiting period, not a year like MD. I never said it was instant, but it didn’t need to take as long as it did. She couldnt even file until after the baby was born, then they were able to start the process. They both wanted out and it got nastier the more it lingered. He blamed her for keeping him from being able to move on because she was pregnant and the divorce couldn’t happen on his timeline, so he was pretty angry when the baby was born.

Also, you don’t have to be married to establish paternity or get child support and custody. That’s such a silly reason to say someone has to remain married. It’s not a good reason to take choices away from people, especially women during such a vulnerable time.

+1 argue that someone SHOULDN'T get divorced during pregnancy and then let them make the choice

it's cruel and dehumanizing to take this option away from people

[Anonymous]

GOP must control women at all costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No; it’s a legal procedure to ensure the well being of the child.

Can the needs of a newborn be ensured via court orders and proceedings without people here acting like it is an attack on women? Divorce takes months at the best, if everything goes well. Nobody is saying a woman has to live with an abusive man. People can live separately during divorce. Talk about making a problem where there is just a legal issue that is to protect and provide for a pregnant woman and a newborn.

[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.

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?

Where is the evidence that every pregnant woman in Missouri is getting divorced because her husband is a violent wife beating rapist?

Women who are being beaten and raped during marriage and divorce can call the police. The husband will be arrested and a restraining order will be issued. The husband will not be allowed contact with the pregnant wife while the divorce is pending and goes through the legal system.