Pregnant Women in Missouri Can't get Divorced

Tuesday, May 07, 2024

Women in Missouri going through divorce proceeding must disclose to the court if they are pregnant or not. If they are pregnant, the judge won't finalize a divorce.

Posted by retort at 06:02 PM | 34 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Pregnant Women in Missouri Can't get Divorced

OK, but what about their husbands?

#1 | Posted by censored at 2024-05-07 06:08 PM | Reply

Even if the woman is seeking a divorce because she needs to protect herself from a mistreating husband?

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-07 06:22 PM | Reply

"A pregnant woman or girl has no rights that the white man is bound to respect"

--The Breed Stock Decision aka Dobbs

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-07 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is actually false, but its interesting pretty interesting.

The judge can't finalize the divorce if the "berthing parent" is pregnant. Until the arrangements for the custody and support of the children is finalized.

The reason for this is that for child support you need, according to the law.

The last four digits of the Social Security number of the petitioner, respondent and each child;

Once the pregnancy is over the judge can finalize.

Law has been on the books and back to 1973, I am wondering if this is due to the new nature of divorce, and not completely figured out how to handle it yet.

Of course TruthLacking claims its the White Mans fault, heck I bet TruthLacks even blames the white man for his ignorance.

www.factcheck.org

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-05-07 07:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

you're too stupid to get the reference

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-07 07:12 PM | Reply

Another reason why these law existed was the presumption of paternity for any child born during a marriage. By law, a married man in many states was, and is still the legal father of his wife's child regardless of evidence to the contrary. Allowing a man to divorce his wife prior to the child's birth would have the effect of denying paternal responsibility.

Those reasons are no longer good ones, these laws should be repealed, but they will need to have some mechanism to bifurcate divorce proceedings and child custody/support proceedings in states where that option is not available.

#6 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-07 09:44 PM | Reply

This must be the Good Old Southern Hospitality I've heard so much about!

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-07 10:37 PM | Reply

Women are property of the state.

This is the regressive Republican agenda.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-05-07 10:52 PM | Reply

That's your MAGA freedumb right there.

#9 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-05-07 11:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Women are property of the state.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-05-07 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag

You had a good teacher.

#10 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-05-08 12:41 AM | Reply

The south stopped progressing when they lost the civil war. They just paused everything.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-05-08 02:04 AM | Reply

"Women are property of the state."

As the comment before yours pointed out, these laws aren't about controlling women but keeping men in involuntary servitude.

#12 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-05-08 06:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

So long as you knock them up, they can't divorce their abusers.

Missouri logic.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-05-08 07:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As the comment before yours pointed out, these laws aren't about controlling women but keeping men in involuntary servitude."

Involuntary servitude is slavery so ypu're saying a man paying child support is a slave? I call him a responsible adult.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2024-05-08 08:01 AM | Reply

....and the re-enslavement of women amongst the Reich continues.

Women. Stop breeding with them!

#15 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-05-08 08:48 AM | Reply

"Involuntary servitude is slavery so ypu're saying a man paying child support is a slave?"

As much as a woman being forced to follow through on an unwanted pregnancy and support it for the next 20 years.

#16 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-05-08 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So you're saying Right wing fathers don't support their kids outside of wedlock?
That IS what you are saying isn't it Sentinel? 'Involuntary servitude'...
So you are man enough to bring a kid into the world, but not man enough to support it,
unless the woman stays 'barefoot and pregnant and minds her business in the kitchen'?

I'm a liberal democrat. Always have been. Paid every single dime of my child support
when I got divorced. Still support my son to some degree and he's 26...

We don't give up on our kids. We don't put qualifiers on our support for our kids.

#17 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-05-08 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So long as you knock them up, they can't divorce their abusers.

Missouri logic.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-05-08 07:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Same law in California, but somehow the liberals don't mind.

#18 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-08 01:45 PM | Reply

CAN YOU GET DIVORCED WHILE PREGNANT IN CALIFORNIA?

Yes, you can initiate the divorce process, even if you or your spouse are pregnant. However, the court will not finalize the divorce until after the child's birth. This delay is primarily due to issues surrounding paternity and potential confusion that could arise.

What's the problem, genius?

#19 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-08 02:23 PM | Reply

If you choose to have a kid, then that's your choice.

If you never chose to have a kid but someone else chooses to force you into 20 years of involuntary servitude, then that's slavery. Doesn't matter if you're male or female, black or white, or what have you.

#20 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-05-08 03:28 PM | Reply

Just take the kid to a gravel pit.

Problem solved.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-08 05:15 PM | Reply

There's always the Tallahatchie Bridge..... a Southern tradition.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-08 05:20 PM | Reply

All the comments are priceless in the context of #18

#23 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-05-08 05:20 PM | Reply

Just take the kid to a gravel pit.

Or the train station.

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-08 05:24 PM | Reply

#19. The Missouri law that manyhere seem to be bent of out shape about is exactly the same as the California law that everybody is fine with. That is my point.

#25 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-08 09:13 PM | Reply

@#12 ... As the comment before yours pointed out, these laws aren't about controlling women but keeping men in involuntary servitude. ...

OK.

The comment your are replying to says, as you quote...

... "Women are property of the state." ...

So I do a text search of this thread for that and I see in #8 ...

... Women are property of the state.

This is the regressive Republican agenda. ...

So, with that background, let me ask the following...

How does what the comment you replied to have anything with holding men in involuntary servitude?

#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-08 09:33 PM | Reply

@#20 ... If you choose to have a kid, then that's your choice. ...

Republicans seem to have a differing opinion of late.

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-08 09:35 PM | Reply

Just to educate you, if you are paying attention.

The State of Idaho argued before the Supreme Court that a woman cannot get an abortion for stabilizing care (i.e. emergency scenarios) even if the abortion is needed to prevent loss of an organ or serious risk to permanent damage to her body.

In other words, the State of Idaho is arguing that a pregnant woman has no say over whether she will lose an organ to keep a fetus, even if the fetus is not viable.

"A pregnant woman or girl has no rights that the white man is bound to respect"
--The Breed Stock Decision aka Dobbs

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-08 09:48 PM | Reply

Same law in California, but somehow the liberals don't mind.

#18 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Classic whataboutism argument, just saying

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-08 09:50 PM | Reply

Texas also has this law btw

and what else is Texas doing you ask?

www.patricialbrownlaw.com

In recent years, the Texas legislature has seen a resurgence of efforts aimed at tightening divorce laws, spearheaded predominantly by conservative lawmakers. These endeavors have stirred significant debate, with proponents arguing for the preservation of family values and opponents voicing concerns about potential negative consequences, including increased family violence.

So, can't an abortion, harder to divorce, can't divorce when pregnant.

Republicans claim they don't hate women.

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-08 09:55 PM | Reply

@#28 ... Just to educate you, if you are paying attention. ...

Thanks for that education.

But I am paying attention, and I see what is occurring.

My concern, at this point is more the strategy of the GOP.

Strategically, how is the Trump SCOTUS countered?

... And as a follow-up, with the possible future addition of Judge Cannon (who really seems to be aching for a SCOTUS appointment), what say ye?

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-08 10:09 PM | Reply

@#30 ... Republicans claim they don't hate women. ...

I say that Republicans do not hate women, but they want to control them. Dominate them.

Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, with dinner on the table when he comes home from work.

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-08 10:14 PM | Reply

"Just take the kid to a gravel pit."

That brings back fond memories of Doctor Who (RIP).

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-05-09 08:06 AM | Reply

This is actually false, but its interesting pretty interesting.
The judge can't finalize the divorce if the "berthing parent" is pregnant. Until the arrangements for the custody and support of the children is finalized.
The reason for this is that for child support you need, according to the law.
The last four digits of the Social Security number of the petitioner, respondent and each child;
Once the pregnancy is over the judge can finalize.
Law has been on the books and back to 1973, I am wondering if this is due to the new nature of divorce, and not completely figured out how to handle it yet.
Of course TruthLacking claims its the White Mans fault, heck I bet TruthLacks even blames the white man for his ignorance.
www.factcheck.org
#4 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Your factcheck says the exact same thing as the article.

By the way, since white men made the law and the common practice, who else would be at fault?

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-05-09 11:52 AM | Reply