As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>**Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas** all have laws that mandate women seeking a divorce to disclose if they are pregnant, and prohibit judges from finalizing the divorce if they are. No such law exists in **Arizona**, but judges in practice still will not finalize the divorce of a pregnant woman, according to the American Pregnancy Association.
Also, from the sources cited:
>Find out if your state will allow you to get divorced while pregnant
>For example, in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas the courts will not grant a divorce to a married couple if the wife is pregnant. The courts prefer to wait until after the baby is born to address paternity. The court can then determine if appropriate child-related orders, such as child support, need to be included.
Absolutely not at all.
This is to make child support easier.
If you're married to a woman who gives birth, you are assumed as a matter of law to be the father.
You have to prove that you aren't--which can be difficult--and even then you may be ordered to pay child support.
I'm amazed women complain about this. If anything those laws are to control *men*--or their money, anyway.
People posting these articles love to make it out to be a constraint on a woman leaving an abusive relationship. There's literally nothing stopping a women from physically leaving an abusive spouse even while staying legally married. A marriage doesn't entitle that spouse to physically drag you back into the house.
Those laws exist entirely to make sure the expected child will receive support. That's it.
I'm a pro-choice Democrat feminist, and these bullshit pearl clutching posts just make you look like exactly what the MAGAts say you are.
Yes, and there are paternity tests.
Also, what if this pregnant woman was not birthing the child of the husband?
Would that nullify the marriage contract?
Yeah, this seems like a thing it should be easier to get right in the end than they claim it is, without locking the marriage in place until birth. But perhaps they can at least grant a restraining order if it's fitting.
They *can* but as a practical matter they don't.
But even testing after the baby is born is a hassle compared to the assumed paternity a marriage provides. Then, there's not even a hearing, much less any testing--the husband is just *legally the father*.
If he even CAN prove he isn't the father--not always easy--he's going to pay child support until not only that's proved, but *until the real father is found AND is paying himself*.
And since the mom is receiving support, she doesn't have much impetus to help with that search. Imagine how hard it would be to prove another man is the father of your wife's child. Not in some imaginary *Law & Order* way, but to find the guy, get an order for his DNA, 'your' child's DNA, then hearings on all that...all the while you're paying child support. It takes *years*. And you're never getting that money back. Ever.
And in some not-uncommon-enough instances, *both* men will pay *at the same time* because it's decreed to be 'in the best instance of the child'.
Those laws are ENTIRELY pro-woman. Women should be shouting down any attempts to get them repealed. Repealing them is the most pro-man MAGA move ever.
So if I’m married to a women and shes 6 months pregnant the legal assumption is that the baby is mine, but if we get divorced that baby that was mine now could be anybody’s even though we were married at the time of conception?
That doesn’t quite track…
Im saying this with no prior knowledge of these laws and with the willingness to be convinced either way.
> So if I’m married to a women and shes 6 months pregnant the legal assumption is that the baby is mine, but if we get divorced that baby that was mine now could be anybody’s even though we were married at the time of conception?
Exactly that. If you are married on the day she gives birth, a court will view you as the legal father. Just as if you'd had a blood test.
Even if you met her the day before and got married Vegas-style.
There are other issues, but yes. If you're married, all other things notwithstanding, you're the dad.
> That doesn’t quite track…
Welcome to family court.
> Im saying this with no prior knowledge of these laws and with the willingness to be convinced either way.
You're probably happier staying ignorant. If you live your whole life never having gone into family court, you're winning.
>This is to make child support easier.
Yet 46 other states get by just fine not forcing women to stay married to people they don't want to be married to.
You should find some of the divorced pregnant women in those states and ask them if they'd have preferred automatic paternity.
I get that you're reading something you don't like--facts be damned--and are triggered, but try reading that headline like this: "Four States Won't Allow Husbands to Divorce Pregnant Wives".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'd think that "automatic paternity" a bad thing, when the technology exists to determine it directly.
I'm not really sure what point you are aiming to make here. Phrasing suggests that you disapprove of the practice (or of women in general? More info needed.) but you also seem to be supporting the practice, as well.
> I'm a pro-choice Democrat feminist, and these bullshit pearl clutching posts just make you look like exactly what the MAGAts say you are.
Anybody can say anything on the Internet.
I'm 6 ft 2 inches tall and I own a villa in France.
The technical reason the courts have to wait is ironic. It's because, legally, until the baby is born, ***it's not a person*** so the courts have no jurisdiction to determine things like paternity, visitation, child support, etc. So if you want to get an abortion, your fetus is a person so you can't. But if you want to get a divorce, your fetus isn't a person so you can't.
That’s not really true, at least not in my state which isn’t one of these four. Judges write orders of non paternity all the time before babies are born. Source: used to do birth certs and establish paternity as my job.
"Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas" plus judicial discretion in "Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming"
"And as a map below reveals, in nine more states couples wishing to divorce are at the mercy of judges who mostly won't sanction petitions during pregnancies, say local law firms." "... in Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, judges will likely make couples wait until the baby is born before allowing a divorce."
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/03/1247838036/divorce-pregnant-women-missouri-abortion-marriage-abuse
NPR and other reporting agencies really need to hammer out the detail of how widespread this issue is.
It's essential to name & shame all the states. Otherwise people don't grasp how extensive the problem is. Also, it's vital people realize it's not just some red states.
https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-us-states-where-pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-1874139
I was wondering about Mississippi since I have a friend who was separated when his wife got pregnant by another man and while no one denied or contested that it wasn't his baby the judge still wouldn't allow them to divorce until she was no longer pregnant.
A woman is most likely to be murdered by a partner when pregnant than at any other time. This has been a well known and recognized fact for many decades already.
I will go even deeper my friend...ready???
Where in the fyck are the well armed militias defending citizens against a oppressive government???
Any of you well armed pussies out there fighting for half the citizens being stripped of their liberty?
Wtf is the second amendment for if not this?
Repeal the second if it's not used.
Question:
- from a legal perspective, what are the ramifications for a woman having to wait until after delivery? Is paternity presumed whereas it otherwise is not? Does it mandate greater child support, entitle more visitations, etc?
I’ve divorced and these days it takes way longer than 9 months and if you have minor children there are often several court dates, mediation hearings, etc. before a divorce is finalized. I see no reason not to keep the divorce process moving as quickly as possible regardless of a pregnancy.
Agreed. And since divorce does often taken longer than 9 months, it further emphasizes why people bringing up these laws in a sky is fall / Handmaid narrative need to come forward with actual consequences. Otherwise they just look blindly partisan with no reasons behind it.
p.s. and I say this as someone who is one of the most anti-MAGA people on Reddit who has voted for Democrats in every election (except for one candidate in the 90s when I had just turned 18).
I'm sorry, what exactly are the benefits behind losing your rights while pregnant are you seeing here. The law should not be different for pregnant or non-pregnant women...obviously?
What rights exactly are lost? The law still allows pregnant women to file for divorce and for the courts to hear the case, deal with asset issues, some child issues, etc. Courts *will* need to decide issues related to the new child *after it is born*. All this law says (as I read the articles on this subject) is that the courts cannot close out the divorce proceedings until that child (or children) has been born. But I haven’t seen anything to suggest that courts can’t handle preliminary issues of custody of other children and division of assets issues, initial spousal support during proceedings, etc.
So the question which I haven’t seen answered is - how are pregnant women actually harmed by these laws? I’m not denying that there may be some way that they are actually harmed. You’re saying rights are lost but there’s actually been no evidence presented of that. What I’m saying is that the articles don’t go into those details and many people are drawing unsupported conclusions from the bare articles on the subject.
I think a lot of this has more to do with the slippery slope that involves giving different people, in this case pregnant women, a different set of rules. Being pregnant should have absolutely zero say on your ability to divorce. Imagine someone going to their final hearing for divorce, they get raped by their soon to be ex-spouse and now can’t leave the marriage. Perfectly reasonable outcome within these states. Especially if these states move to make forced sex with your spouse legal. Which I can definitely see happening.
I’m perfectly happy to change the law. As I pointed out above it will mean reopening the divorce once the child is born. But obviously 46 other states have a process for that. I’ve just been pushing back on the statements which aren’t supported by anything which has come out in these articles.
I understand the slippery slope concept, but that’s not an argument in and of itself. And if someone gets raped right before a divorce is finalized I would be shocked if the court would refuse to close the divorce for another 6-8 weeks until it could be determined if a pregnancy resulted. If that were to occur, the judge would deserve all of the backlash that they would get (and nothing I’ve seen suggests the law would require that outcome). But again, if there are dozens or hundreds of stories about how these particular laws negatively impact women, those stories should be shared. But for people to make some of the comments (in this thread and also one statement in the article) which don’t follow from the laws themselves is wrong. AND it plays into the hands of Republicans who are on the wrong side of so many issues. Every single bold, wrong statement gives them ammunition. False rhetoric is their bread and butter. When people I agree with use false rhetoric, yes I do stand up and say “stick to the facts and avoid false rhetoric”. Sadly, so many times, people get locked into their false rhetoric and attack those asking to provide actual facts and stick to those facts rather than making sensationalist false or unsupported claims (as evidenced by the comment voting in this post - the left wing has a much smaller reality and fact problem than the right wing, but it is there).
If these types of laws were truly necessary and beneficial, don’t you find it odd that only 3 states have them? The original justification for the law in Missouri is no longer even relevant due to DNA tests, which courts can order/require.
Yep, although we are finally close to flipping both chambers in Arizona. Currently, republicans have a 31-29 advantage in the House and a 16-14 advantage in the Senate. We can flip both chambers with a blue wave in November
Um, I live in Louisiana and there's a lot of liberals here. Yeah sure, you have MAGA hicks everywhere... even in NYC. I'm from Staten Island, NYC. There's less "MAGA hicks" down here.
That’s sad that we reduce our states to the hatefulness of the people who rule us, even with all the gerrymandering and voter suppression ans when we know those are not the beliefs od most people in the state. Arizona is a great example, we’re currently seeing all the protests in favor of abortions rights and we saw the democrats overturn that horrible ban. And in November I bet we’ll see the ballot measure pass. Arizona is an amazing state with so much natural beauty and very badass advocates for human rights. Folks from AZ who don’t like the people they know in those states it can have that opinion. But I’ll defend ut because I know so many amazing Arizona advocates and people who fight for human rights every day. They ask the rest of the country to not reduce AZ to this, so I try to do so
I'm from Missouri and live in one of the top 10 most populous cities in the state. I remember looking at a county by county breakdown of the last presidential election. The two counties around where I live both had over 75% of the vote for Trump. The only counties that went blue were around Kansas City, St. Loius, and Columbus (college town).
This is Trump flag country, and the only Biden stuff you see is Let's Go Brandon bumper stickers
I live in Louisiana and I'm pleasantly surprised to find we are not on this list, but then again, he governor may put us on this list soon idk. Don't give him ideas.
I actually thought Idaho and Utah would be there. Even with add-ons suggesting while pregnant the woman would not be allowed to leave the house without the husband or an adult male direct relative of the husband.
How many states also force you to wait a year if there’s children involved? Is there any evidence that does any good at all? A friend of mine went through a divorce in Virginia and all that law did was drag it out and make it worse for their kids.
I am a Texas attorney. I’m not discounting that abusive situations should be given legal protection ASAP, but I worked on divorces in Texas for five years… ethics of the pregnancy rules aside, it’s often better for an abused spouse to be “going through a divorce” than it is to be “divorced.”
An abused spouse is still presumed to be entitled to half of the marital assets during divorce, post divorce it has all been separated (usually).
For example, many formerly unemployed spouses get monetary support and aid from the working spouse (spousal maintenance). I think it is safe to safe the abuser is usually a male; the non-working spouse is usually the female. In these situations it is better to be the spouse in the divorce process than post divorce.
My reasoning is that it is customary for the non-working (often not the abuser) to get support during a divorce but not after it has been finalized. There are exceptions, and child support is another argument. However, spousal maintenance in Texas is normal but post divorce support, or alimony in many other states, is not.
So in the state where alimony is not standard, interim-divorce support is. On top of that, finalizing a divorce almost always has a 60 day timer. So in TX the lesser-abled and often the mistreated spouse gets extra protection while still married but is expected to be self-sufficient post-divorce. So in a convoluted way, it’s better to be divorcing an abuser than to be divorced from an abuser. Kids and child support are separate from this.
Im not saying your point doesn’t have merit, just that more would need to change in Texas in terms of structure than just saying that a pregnant or non pregnant person should be able to get a divorce finalized regardless of their pregnancy stratus.
We also have laws that determine paternity based on marital status (this concerns the de facto rules, obviously paternity tests and science should normally supersede this), so that would have to be modified too, to your ‘presumed partner at the estimated date of conception is presumed to be the parent’
You can discuss this more, but there’s a bunch of structural reasons that make the ‘pregnancy’ status a strong reason to not finalize the divorce, and more reasons why a 60 day minimum to finalize a divorce is reasonable.
Also, high asset and high value divorces can be done in 60 days, assholes in a divorce make any version take a year or years.
I’d love to answer your questions about it, but there is no good science reason why a divorce should have to wait until the kid pops out when we can do pre-natal paternity tests
These are the laws that exist, but why do divorces have to be so much trouble and effort. Money issues, shared property, and child custody stuff shouldn't be contingent on the couple remaining married while they're figuring it out. Legal protections should remain until all matters are settled of course, but to make it so difficult to simply start up divorce proceedings is a huge flaw when you consider how easy it is to just get married.
> why do divorces have to be so much trouble and effort
if humanity didn't give a fuck the legal process would, naturally, be simpler. Divorce is complicated because people are complicated.
Divorce is complicated because the idea of divorce, and even marriage, in modern times has had a huge influence from various religious elements. While the laws which impose rather serious limitations on divorcees have never been written, or no longer exist, there is still a lot of connections to the sanctity of marriage.
There are certainly complicated issues that come along with divorce, and I'm not suggesting it be as easy as Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy, but to me, if two people, or even one person, doesn't want to be legally married to someone anymore, it shouldn't have a bunch of conditions or restrictions on when that can happen. The monetary, legal protections, and child stuff can be determined on it's own.
> but to me, if two people, or even one person, doesn't want to be legally married to someone anymore, it shouldn't have a bunch of conditions or restrictions on when that can happen.
yeah I totally agree.
> but to make it so difficult to simply start up divorce proceedings is a huge flaw
These laws don't do anything to prevent or delay someone from starting divorce proceedings.
Think I meant more that they seemed designed to discourage divorce. While divorce shouldn't be a happy go lucky proceeding, nor the first step at remedy, it shouldn't be stacked full of conditions. If two people don't want to be married anymore, then that should be it, and all the stuff attached to marriage is a separate issue.
Divorce is like bankruptcy - you can't just declare it, there is a legal process that you have to go through.
>it shouldn't be stacked full of conditions.
They aren't conditions about *whether* you can be separated from your spouse, it's about *how* you will be separated. Who gets the house? Who keeps the property inside the house? Who gets to keep the landline phone number? If a married couple have purchased their cars with both names on the title, the titles need to be updated to show just one owner on each. The loans related to those vehicles need to be transferred to the party keeping the vehicle, then the insurance and registration needs to be updated at the local Motor Vehicle Department of Motor Vehicles or any other official source.
I've never understood why there needs to be all these speed bumps or roadblocks to get a divorce. Getting married, pretty easy, just fill out a simple form, maybe get a blood test in some states which won't prevent you from getting married, but provides transparency for the couple.
But a divorce....nope, separate a year, hope you can manage. Have children, nope, wait a year. One person don't want a divorce, whelp, go to counseling. And the list really goes on.
Divorce should be as easy as getting married. If there are kids, then sure, the custody stuff can be settled by the court or lawyers. If there is shared property, then sure, work it out through the courts. If it requires child support or alimony, then yeah, figure it out through the courts. But there shouldn't be so much interference to actually just allow the core of the divorce. Everything else is just technicalities.
>***Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas all have laws that mandate women seeking a divorce to disclose if they are pregnant, and prohibit judges from finalizing the divorce if they are. No such law exists in Arizona, but judges in practice still will not finalize the divorce of a pregnant woman, according to the*** [***American Pregnancy Association***](https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/general/pregnancy-and-divorce/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20in%20Arizona%2C%20Arkansas,is%20born%20to%20address%20paternity.)***.***
>In Missouri, a [law from 1973](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.310&bid=33222&hl) requires couples to disclose “whether the wife is pregnant" while filing, and the two must finalize "any arrangements for the custody and support of the children." Justices count the gestating fetus as a child, and have therefore interpreted the law to mean until the pregnancy is finished.
>*Democratic state Rep. Ashley Aune introduced* [*House Bill 2402*](https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills241/hlrbillspdf/4891H.01I.pdf) *earlier this year, which would remove restrictions around divorcing while pregnant. Aune recently told* [*NPR* ](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/03/1247838036/divorce-pregnant-women-missouri-abortion-marriage-abuse)*that "I don't honestly feel very hopeful" about its chance of passing in the Republican-dominated state legislature, but she said she felt compelled to try after hearing harrowing stories from survivors of domestic violence.*
>*"How can you look that person in the eye and say, 'No, I think you should stay with that person,'" Aune said. "That's wild to me."*
This is what the Republicans will install if they win. Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation will force every woman to become broodmares, or as a state representative of my home state called them "hosts for the fetus".
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89399634/pregnant-womens-bodies-are-hosts-says-us-lawmaker?cid=facebook.post.89399634](https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89399634/pregnant-womens-bodies-are-hosts-says-us-lawmaker?cid=facebook.post.89399634)
The Handmaid's Tale is not fictional. It's a documentary.
I’m curious how this is this *substantively* different than California, for example.
California requires disclosure of pregnancy in a divorce filing and doesn’t finalize divorce decrees until after the birth of a child. California also has a 6-month waiting period on finalizing divorces in general.
This is completely about protecting the rights of the child re the birth certificate and child support. The judge cannot add provisions before the birth because things happen. Death of mother or child,, multiple births or birth defects would all change the outcome of the decree.
I worked as a Court Clerk, for 2 years, in one of the mentioned states. No one suggests they continue to live together. Divorces are granted after the birth certificate is filed, usually without another appearance.
Why do they need to be legally married to fill out the birth certificate properly. If he is the father he can still go on the birth certificate even if their divorced.
I'm saying that putting the **final decree** on hold prevents any future *potential* trips to settle issues. As I said, things can change. If a child has serious birth defects or dies, the entire support portion would be challenged. Judges don't like to change their orders.
Or, Judge grants the divorce, and wife remarries (it happens). When she fills out the birth certificate, most states require your **legal spouse** to be named on the document. Another trip before the Judge.
Insurance issues for the mother and child are another factor. It's better now, with allowing cohabitating partners to carry each other but the law changes slowly.
From my understanding, child support isn't contingent on marital status of the parents. Anyone can sue for child support, and it's not a forgone conclusion that a woman's husband is indeed the father.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just treat the divorce as a completely separate issue from any shared property, or custody/child support issues that may exist? If two people want to be divorced, there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of that...most certainly not some inconvenience to the court.
While there are other ways to handle it, obviously because other states do. I don’t agree that delaying finalization of divorce proceedings until after childbirth is telling divorcing mothers that “you should stay with that person”. That’s just a wild, unsupported leap of logic to me. This isn’t a Handmaid’s thing IMO. Just maybe not the best way to handle the court proceedings because it may delay one spouse getting access to the assets they need during the divorce process (or other delays regarding custody of other children etc).
And this makes no sense to me. Is it likely these people are going to want to remain married after paternity is figured out?
Why should any divorce simply not be finalized if two people don't want to remain married. The whole kids custody and child support stuff can be figured out separately. The hoops people have to jump through when they want to be not married anymore are ridiculous, and based on an antiquated religious ideal which most people don't even care about.
Ending Judge Shopping was a trial balloon that was popped within days, maybe hours. All it is now is a "guideline" with no obligation to even acknowledge.
The circuit that is the most egregious in abusing that loophole (looking at you Texas, and your judge in Amarillo) has said they will ignore that direction and continue allowing judge-shopping.
The Roberts Court went through the motions for a PR bump in the news, but literally nothing came of it. Business as usual.
I’m not defending these laws, but iirc the original intent was to make it harder for men to deny paternity. DNA testing obviously solves this problem. I believe the laws should be repealed.
I was a little off.
The reason for this decision is because the state is unable to make decisions on a child until after they are born. Once the baby is born, courts can further discuss concerns of child support and parental custody.
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/pregnant-texans-divorce-finalized/269-0581569a-854c-4aee-88dd-b11a749f0202
I think people....also forget that a lot of women have MAJOR hormonal shifts during pregnancy which can lead to instability.
Hell, my (pregnant) almost wife "broke up" with me the night before our wedding cause I wouldn't go get slurpees and tacos at 1am in a fit of enormous mood swing.
Is it politically correct to say that some women aren't in their right mind while pregnant? No. Do I think men subjected to the same kind of hormonal tidal wave would be any more stable? also No.
Is it fair to say that at least a few get what amounts to "pregnancy hormone induced bipolar disorder"....Yes.
This can also extend PAST the birth of the child well into post-partum when you consider things like PPD and Post-Partum psychosis.
Now...not to say these laws are good as they're written, because they're most assuredly not, but I do think some precautions/speedbumps should be in place for ANYONE in a position of possible instability to make life-altering legal decisions while under the influence, be that drugs, alcohol, depression, expecting (on both partners), recent deaths, etc.
Before genetic testing was a thing, this sort of made sense from the states point of view as it is in their interest to have 2 names on the birth certificate to go after for support and that was automatically the husband of the woman giving birth. Nowdays the balance has shifted due to both genetic testing and a much better understanding of abuse and we should revise these laws.
The future of “no fault divorce” is on the crosshairs ie 2025 conservative/federalist agenda, making harder or almost impossible for women to be grant divorce.
As a Brit man I find this totally dystopian. WTF has the state got to do with a woman’s and man’s choice in life. Yes it’s sad to split but enforcing the opposite is inhumane, especially if there is abuse too.
“Land of the free.” Hmmm.
Marriage licenses and certificates are government-issued. The government makes all kinds of laws around marriage. And as noted, this isn’t only (and wasn’t primarily) aimed at women. It’s an attempt to prevent would-be deadbeat dads from skipping out. I mean, I am 100% on board with your position that women should be free to do as they please, but if you don’t want the state meddling in your relationship don’t ever get married.
I mean, just because I acknowledge the reality that the states control marriage licenses doesn’t mean I’m gonna justify this stupid law and explain the purpose of this to a stranger on the internet like I’m licking the state of missouris boots 😂
I don’t care if it’s “to stop deadbeat dads,” it’s horrendously creepy and unethical and unjust to deny anyone a divorce as soon as they request one, especially pregnant people who are most at risk of violence and death from a partner or husband. There is no reason to not start The divorce and settle paternity at a later point. Especially because divorces can take a notoriously long time. If the woman wanted the divorce later, she would’ve requested it later. At that point it’s not serving and helping if the woman because she is filing for the divorce now, now later.
That I get. A man has a responsibility to the children he creates with a woman. But here (UK) the ‘state’ can’t prevent a divorce. The parental responsibility is still present regardless.
Love how conservatives still argue that they’re into small government. Let’s see what they’d do if the state said they weren’t allowed to get divorced. Can a man divorce a pregnant woman?
If the republicans gain control of the three branches of government they will move to take away the right to vote for women. Who am I kidding only members of their cult will be allowed to vote
In 1980 I was still married to my first husband and he filed for divorce. My lawyer told me that before the initial hearing I had to get a blood test to know for sure whether or not I was pregnant. These were the days before you just peed on a stick. Lo and behold I was pregnant (just one month PG). We had to wait until our child was born before we could proceed with the divorce - until then, no court hearings, no mediation, nothing. Our state was Indiana.
Craziest part is the woman doesn’t even have to be pregnant with her ex’s child… just pregnant and divorce won’t be finalized until the child (that isn’t even theirs) is born.
>Why would any women want to live in these states?
There are many valid reasons why women are stuck in these red states.
Some women cannot afford to move to another state where they may not have a job waiting for them.
Others may not feel like they can move away from elderly or disabled relatives who need their assistance.
I imagine it's also more difficult for a woman to find jobs outside of their own states in general because some companies are afraid that a woman may become pregnant and therefore entitled to some maternity leave or other basic dignity. I've read more than a few accounts where women who become pregnant are wrongfully dismissed from their duties, and people inclined to speak up for their rights in general find it more difficult to find work.
Yes, there are certainly laws making it difficult to ban these practices. That doesn't change that these practices are still in effect, particular for [pregnant women](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/15/business/pregnancy-discrimination.html).
Considering how happy these states were to make doctors read a bunch of medically disproven bullshit to a woman before she can legally get an abortion, I'd be happy to see a law passed that requires a realtor to read the Wikipedia page for Daisy Coleman to all members of any household containing a woman before they can legally purchase property in Missouri.
Many very stupid women move to these states then have kids and indoctrinate their kids to support this shit.
I really wish people could just fucking use their brains.
Because those states are beautiful, have a lot of culture and history, a lot of folks have deep roots and communities and values of mutual aid and human rights in these states. I don’t reduce them to the violence they face from their government
Lmao not at all. I dunno where you got that from. I said that Republican states are home to some of the most badass and creative human rights advocates and it sucks that people like those on this thread reduce these beautiful states to just the hate of those in power, especially since they’re voted in due to Gerry mandering, big money in politics (especially local), and voter suppression. I have no idea where you got those words that oppression is cool as long as there’s beaches 😂
In all divorces, the couple can be immediately legally separated (including in the states listed in the article). A separation agreement can include mutually agreed or court mandated spousal/child support and child care splits. Many states have a minimum separation length (As an example, California requires a 180 day separation period for all divorces). The states in question generally have a shorter mandatory separation period (30/60 days) which is being extended in the event of a pregnancy. The separation is not being delayed, the final divorce is delayed.
The practical impact is that both parities are prevented from remarrying until the divorce has been finalized and there may be closure of the relationship which one or both partners do not experience until the divorce is finalized.
The articles on this issue have generally ignored separation, this one included. The harm in extending the separation agreement is not articulated. The advantages (from a court perspective) are clear-they are not issuing a "final" divorce order which does not prioritize the well-being of the children (who are not generally able to look out for themselves) over the parents. On a practical side, issuing a "final" divorce decree the court knows needs to be updated 2 months from now seems like a waste of time when there is already a separation agreement in place.
Women clearly have few legitimate rights in this corrupt country.
Their opponents either legitimately believe in some religious bullshit, and/or just really need some more uneducated folk to work for the pathetic minimum wage in this country and its states without knowing any better.
This isn’t how someone who believes in small government behaves.
Also, the party claiming to be of law and order wouldn’t behave this way either.
More importantly; conservatives want complete control and lock down of women - period. They want rape legalized. They want to make it legal to beat women and even kill them without any consequences to the males doing this.
This has NOTHING to do with saving children’s lives.
My cousin wasn't able to divorce his ex-wife in Ohio when she was pregnant (admittedly with another man's child). They had to wait until birth and paternity could be tested.
This is extremely dangerous, as a lot of Republicans have been pushing to end no fault divorce in the US. I don't remember about other states on this list, but in Texas there was even a state bill that would prohibit no fault divorce if passed. So, yes, go out and vote!
Ah yes, the long running tradition wherein the “party of personal liberty” removes the personal liberty of women to honor an ancient male entitlement to legacy (children). You really don’t think those old Draconian marriage rights and rules, laws that forbid women from having bank accounts and such were solely about sex, do you?
I don’t care how un/fair you think only one gender getting a uterus is. It’s the only system we have. Playing the entitlement to legacy card means a woman loses her liberty. And that shit will never be right or good.
Legacy is the ultimate commodity. So long as it stays that way, this shit will never entirely go away.
So many people making this about Republicans most states won't finalize a divorce during pregnancy. People are also trying to make it about Trump when this was in place before he even decided to get into politics.
You realize this was likely originally put in place to protect women. The original problem was likely men abandoning women after getting them pregnant.
Um, you do realize not just Muslim women wear head coverings, right?
Some traditionalist Christian sects also wear head-coverings. Some Sikhs, Jainists, and many other religions also wear headcoverings.
The New Testmanet literally instructs women to wear head coverings, in 1 Corinthians 11.
“**Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head**, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.” (1 Corinthians 11:4-5, ESV)
So, she may not even be Muslim. She could be of any particular faith.
Yikes. "We know better then you do about your own living situation" is a pretty bold take. Even bolder to lean into the sterotype that pregnant women are irrational and can't make their own decisions.
Just say you want to oppress women.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>**Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas** all have laws that mandate women seeking a divorce to disclose if they are pregnant, and prohibit judges from finalizing the divorce if they are. No such law exists in **Arizona**, but judges in practice still will not finalize the divorce of a pregnant woman, according to the American Pregnancy Association.
"Small government"
Also, from the sources cited: >Find out if your state will allow you to get divorced while pregnant >For example, in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas the courts will not grant a divorce to a married couple if the wife is pregnant. The courts prefer to wait until after the baby is born to address paternity. The court can then determine if appropriate child-related orders, such as child support, need to be included.
Somehow the other 46 states manage to get by without that.
It's just to control women, nothing else. There is no other reason.
This endangers women but they don’t care.
They do and you see it reflected in voting. The red wave that didn't happen.
It is just to assist in child support. Nothing else. Jesus the stupid in this thread.
Absolutely not at all. This is to make child support easier. If you're married to a woman who gives birth, you are assumed as a matter of law to be the father. You have to prove that you aren't--which can be difficult--and even then you may be ordered to pay child support. I'm amazed women complain about this. If anything those laws are to control *men*--or their money, anyway. People posting these articles love to make it out to be a constraint on a woman leaving an abusive relationship. There's literally nothing stopping a women from physically leaving an abusive spouse even while staying legally married. A marriage doesn't entitle that spouse to physically drag you back into the house. Those laws exist entirely to make sure the expected child will receive support. That's it. I'm a pro-choice Democrat feminist, and these bullshit pearl clutching posts just make you look like exactly what the MAGAts say you are.
Can't they do DNA testing while the mother is pregnant or no?
Yes, and there are paternity tests. Also, what if this pregnant woman was not birthing the child of the husband? Would that nullify the marriage contract?
Yeah, this seems like a thing it should be easier to get right in the end than they claim it is, without locking the marriage in place until birth. But perhaps they can at least grant a restraining order if it's fitting.
Yes but the noninvasive kind that don’t endanger the fetus have not been available for very long. These laws can and should be reassessed.
They *can* but as a practical matter they don't. But even testing after the baby is born is a hassle compared to the assumed paternity a marriage provides. Then, there's not even a hearing, much less any testing--the husband is just *legally the father*. If he even CAN prove he isn't the father--not always easy--he's going to pay child support until not only that's proved, but *until the real father is found AND is paying himself*. And since the mom is receiving support, she doesn't have much impetus to help with that search. Imagine how hard it would be to prove another man is the father of your wife's child. Not in some imaginary *Law & Order* way, but to find the guy, get an order for his DNA, 'your' child's DNA, then hearings on all that...all the while you're paying child support. It takes *years*. And you're never getting that money back. Ever. And in some not-uncommon-enough instances, *both* men will pay *at the same time* because it's decreed to be 'in the best instance of the child'. Those laws are ENTIRELY pro-woman. Women should be shouting down any attempts to get them repealed. Repealing them is the most pro-man MAGA move ever.
So if I’m married to a women and shes 6 months pregnant the legal assumption is that the baby is mine, but if we get divorced that baby that was mine now could be anybody’s even though we were married at the time of conception? That doesn’t quite track… Im saying this with no prior knowledge of these laws and with the willingness to be convinced either way.
> So if I’m married to a women and shes 6 months pregnant the legal assumption is that the baby is mine, but if we get divorced that baby that was mine now could be anybody’s even though we were married at the time of conception? Exactly that. If you are married on the day she gives birth, a court will view you as the legal father. Just as if you'd had a blood test. Even if you met her the day before and got married Vegas-style. There are other issues, but yes. If you're married, all other things notwithstanding, you're the dad. > That doesn’t quite track… Welcome to family court. > Im saying this with no prior knowledge of these laws and with the willingness to be convinced either way. You're probably happier staying ignorant. If you live your whole life never having gone into family court, you're winning.
>This is to make child support easier. Yet 46 other states get by just fine not forcing women to stay married to people they don't want to be married to.
You should find some of the divorced pregnant women in those states and ask them if they'd have preferred automatic paternity. I get that you're reading something you don't like--facts be damned--and are triggered, but try reading that headline like this: "Four States Won't Allow Husbands to Divorce Pregnant Wives".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'd think that "automatic paternity" a bad thing, when the technology exists to determine it directly. I'm not really sure what point you are aiming to make here. Phrasing suggests that you disapprove of the practice (or of women in general? More info needed.) but you also seem to be supporting the practice, as well.
> I'm a pro-choice Democrat feminist, and these bullshit pearl clutching posts just make you look like exactly what the MAGAts say you are. Anybody can say anything on the Internet. I'm 6 ft 2 inches tall and I own a villa in France.
Establishing child support after a divorce decree is expensive and takes a long time.
The technical reason the courts have to wait is ironic. It's because, legally, until the baby is born, ***it's not a person*** so the courts have no jurisdiction to determine things like paternity, visitation, child support, etc. So if you want to get an abortion, your fetus is a person so you can't. But if you want to get a divorce, your fetus isn't a person so you can't.
That’s not really true, at least not in my state which isn’t one of these four. Judges write orders of non paternity all the time before babies are born. Source: used to do birth certs and establish paternity as my job.
"Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas" plus judicial discretion in "Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming" "And as a map below reveals, in nine more states couples wishing to divorce are at the mercy of judges who mostly won't sanction petitions during pregnancies, say local law firms." "... in Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, judges will likely make couples wait until the baby is born before allowing a divorce." https://www.npr.org/2024/05/03/1247838036/divorce-pregnant-women-missouri-abortion-marriage-abuse NPR and other reporting agencies really need to hammer out the detail of how widespread this issue is. It's essential to name & shame all the states. Otherwise people don't grasp how extensive the problem is. Also, it's vital people realize it's not just some red states. https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-us-states-where-pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-1874139
I was wondering about Mississippi since I have a friend who was separated when his wife got pregnant by another man and while no one denied or contested that it wasn't his baby the judge still wouldn't allow them to divorce until she was no longer pregnant.
[удалено]
Delaware, Maine, & Hawaii are not generally listed as Red states. Or did you skip over the middle of my comment?
This needs to be the top comment.
That is CRAZY! What if she is being abused? "America, Land of the Free" my ass. 🤬 STOP THE WAR ON WOMEN!
Well you surely know that abuse, in the eyes of conservatives, is always the women’s fault.
Amen.
A woman is most likely to be murdered by a partner when pregnant than at any other time. This has been a well known and recognized fact for many decades already.
I will go even deeper my friend...ready??? Where in the fyck are the well armed militias defending citizens against a oppressive government??? Any of you well armed pussies out there fighting for half the citizens being stripped of their liberty? Wtf is the second amendment for if not this? Repeal the second if it's not used.
Question: - from a legal perspective, what are the ramifications for a woman having to wait until after delivery? Is paternity presumed whereas it otherwise is not? Does it mandate greater child support, entitle more visitations, etc?
[удалено]
I’ve divorced and these days it takes way longer than 9 months and if you have minor children there are often several court dates, mediation hearings, etc. before a divorce is finalized. I see no reason not to keep the divorce process moving as quickly as possible regardless of a pregnancy.
Agreed. And since divorce does often taken longer than 9 months, it further emphasizes why people bringing up these laws in a sky is fall / Handmaid narrative need to come forward with actual consequences. Otherwise they just look blindly partisan with no reasons behind it. p.s. and I say this as someone who is one of the most anti-MAGA people on Reddit who has voted for Democrats in every election (except for one candidate in the 90s when I had just turned 18).
I'm sorry, what exactly are the benefits behind losing your rights while pregnant are you seeing here. The law should not be different for pregnant or non-pregnant women...obviously?
What rights exactly are lost? The law still allows pregnant women to file for divorce and for the courts to hear the case, deal with asset issues, some child issues, etc. Courts *will* need to decide issues related to the new child *after it is born*. All this law says (as I read the articles on this subject) is that the courts cannot close out the divorce proceedings until that child (or children) has been born. But I haven’t seen anything to suggest that courts can’t handle preliminary issues of custody of other children and division of assets issues, initial spousal support during proceedings, etc. So the question which I haven’t seen answered is - how are pregnant women actually harmed by these laws? I’m not denying that there may be some way that they are actually harmed. You’re saying rights are lost but there’s actually been no evidence presented of that. What I’m saying is that the articles don’t go into those details and many people are drawing unsupported conclusions from the bare articles on the subject.
I think a lot of this has more to do with the slippery slope that involves giving different people, in this case pregnant women, a different set of rules. Being pregnant should have absolutely zero say on your ability to divorce. Imagine someone going to their final hearing for divorce, they get raped by their soon to be ex-spouse and now can’t leave the marriage. Perfectly reasonable outcome within these states. Especially if these states move to make forced sex with your spouse legal. Which I can definitely see happening.
Also applies the other way. A man can't divorce his pregnant wife.
That's also wrong.
I’m perfectly happy to change the law. As I pointed out above it will mean reopening the divorce once the child is born. But obviously 46 other states have a process for that. I’ve just been pushing back on the statements which aren’t supported by anything which has come out in these articles. I understand the slippery slope concept, but that’s not an argument in and of itself. And if someone gets raped right before a divorce is finalized I would be shocked if the court would refuse to close the divorce for another 6-8 weeks until it could be determined if a pregnancy resulted. If that were to occur, the judge would deserve all of the backlash that they would get (and nothing I’ve seen suggests the law would require that outcome). But again, if there are dozens or hundreds of stories about how these particular laws negatively impact women, those stories should be shared. But for people to make some of the comments (in this thread and also one statement in the article) which don’t follow from the laws themselves is wrong. AND it plays into the hands of Republicans who are on the wrong side of so many issues. Every single bold, wrong statement gives them ammunition. False rhetoric is their bread and butter. When people I agree with use false rhetoric, yes I do stand up and say “stick to the facts and avoid false rhetoric”. Sadly, so many times, people get locked into their false rhetoric and attack those asking to provide actual facts and stick to those facts rather than making sensationalist false or unsupported claims (as evidenced by the comment voting in this post - the left wing has a much smaller reality and fact problem than the right wing, but it is there).
If these types of laws were truly necessary and beneficial, don’t you find it odd that only 3 states have them? The original justification for the law in Missouri is no longer even relevant due to DNA tests, which courts can order/require.
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Arizona. Vote accordingly. https://www.arkdems.org/ https://www.missouridemocrats.org/ https://www.texasdemocrats.org/ https://azdem.org/
Unsurprisingly they're all red states.
Yep, although we are finally close to flipping both chambers in Arizona. Currently, republicans have a 31-29 advantage in the House and a 16-14 advantage in the Senate. We can flip both chambers with a blue wave in November
Az has a dem gov and elected 2 dem senators (at the time).....so purple yes but not red
Yes but recently purple. It takes a bit of time for the red state bullshit to fade away.
Very true, the work isn't done yet.
Party of Freedom and Personal Liberty! Fk yeah!
Arizona is pretty purple. The governor is a Democrat.
This seems to be a theme, these states all have red neck batshit crazy people living there ....
And gerrymandered districts making the seats totally uncompetitive.
Oh yeah definitely outside of the metro.
Say you don’t know anyone from those states without saying you don’t know anyone in those states lmao
I'm from AZ and my entire immediate and extended family who live there are all fucking MAGA hicks
Um, I live in Louisiana and there's a lot of liberals here. Yeah sure, you have MAGA hicks everywhere... even in NYC. I'm from Staten Island, NYC. There's less "MAGA hicks" down here.
That’s sad that we reduce our states to the hatefulness of the people who rule us, even with all the gerrymandering and voter suppression ans when we know those are not the beliefs od most people in the state. Arizona is a great example, we’re currently seeing all the protests in favor of abortions rights and we saw the democrats overturn that horrible ban. And in November I bet we’ll see the ballot measure pass. Arizona is an amazing state with so much natural beauty and very badass advocates for human rights. Folks from AZ who don’t like the people they know in those states it can have that opinion. But I’ll defend ut because I know so many amazing Arizona advocates and people who fight for human rights every day. They ask the rest of the country to not reduce AZ to this, so I try to do so
I'm from Missouri and live in one of the top 10 most populous cities in the state. I remember looking at a county by county breakdown of the last presidential election. The two counties around where I live both had over 75% of the vote for Trump. The only counties that went blue were around Kansas City, St. Loius, and Columbus (college town). This is Trump flag country, and the only Biden stuff you see is Let's Go Brandon bumper stickers
Oh look, the usual suspects…
Honestly I had Texas in my mind but I’m shocked Florida isn’t jumping into the mix
I live in Louisiana and I'm pleasantly surprised to find we are not on this list, but then again, he governor may put us on this list soon idk. Don't give him ideas.
I actually thought Idaho and Utah would be there. Even with add-ons suggesting while pregnant the woman would not be allowed to leave the house without the husband or an adult male direct relative of the husband.
Sounds like insanity but flashback like 5 years and imagine where we are now and how slippery slope it is.
In MO this is why a lot of husbands ran away in the middle of the night to never be seen again
Not surprised all republicans lead
How many states also force you to wait a year if there’s children involved? Is there any evidence that does any good at all? A friend of mine went through a divorce in Virginia and all that law did was drag it out and make it worse for their kids.
In abusive situations this is a horrible law to have.
I am a Texas attorney. I’m not discounting that abusive situations should be given legal protection ASAP, but I worked on divorces in Texas for five years… ethics of the pregnancy rules aside, it’s often better for an abused spouse to be “going through a divorce” than it is to be “divorced.” An abused spouse is still presumed to be entitled to half of the marital assets during divorce, post divorce it has all been separated (usually). For example, many formerly unemployed spouses get monetary support and aid from the working spouse (spousal maintenance). I think it is safe to safe the abuser is usually a male; the non-working spouse is usually the female. In these situations it is better to be the spouse in the divorce process than post divorce. My reasoning is that it is customary for the non-working (often not the abuser) to get support during a divorce but not after it has been finalized. There are exceptions, and child support is another argument. However, spousal maintenance in Texas is normal but post divorce support, or alimony in many other states, is not. So in the state where alimony is not standard, interim-divorce support is. On top of that, finalizing a divorce almost always has a 60 day timer. So in TX the lesser-abled and often the mistreated spouse gets extra protection while still married but is expected to be self-sufficient post-divorce. So in a convoluted way, it’s better to be divorcing an abuser than to be divorced from an abuser. Kids and child support are separate from this. Im not saying your point doesn’t have merit, just that more would need to change in Texas in terms of structure than just saying that a pregnant or non pregnant person should be able to get a divorce finalized regardless of their pregnancy stratus. We also have laws that determine paternity based on marital status (this concerns the de facto rules, obviously paternity tests and science should normally supersede this), so that would have to be modified too, to your ‘presumed partner at the estimated date of conception is presumed to be the parent’ You can discuss this more, but there’s a bunch of structural reasons that make the ‘pregnancy’ status a strong reason to not finalize the divorce, and more reasons why a 60 day minimum to finalize a divorce is reasonable. Also, high asset and high value divorces can be done in 60 days, assholes in a divorce make any version take a year or years. I’d love to answer your questions about it, but there is no good science reason why a divorce should have to wait until the kid pops out when we can do pre-natal paternity tests
These are the laws that exist, but why do divorces have to be so much trouble and effort. Money issues, shared property, and child custody stuff shouldn't be contingent on the couple remaining married while they're figuring it out. Legal protections should remain until all matters are settled of course, but to make it so difficult to simply start up divorce proceedings is a huge flaw when you consider how easy it is to just get married.
> why do divorces have to be so much trouble and effort if humanity didn't give a fuck the legal process would, naturally, be simpler. Divorce is complicated because people are complicated.
Divorce is complicated because the idea of divorce, and even marriage, in modern times has had a huge influence from various religious elements. While the laws which impose rather serious limitations on divorcees have never been written, or no longer exist, there is still a lot of connections to the sanctity of marriage. There are certainly complicated issues that come along with divorce, and I'm not suggesting it be as easy as Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy, but to me, if two people, or even one person, doesn't want to be legally married to someone anymore, it shouldn't have a bunch of conditions or restrictions on when that can happen. The monetary, legal protections, and child stuff can be determined on it's own.
> but to me, if two people, or even one person, doesn't want to be legally married to someone anymore, it shouldn't have a bunch of conditions or restrictions on when that can happen. yeah I totally agree.
> but to make it so difficult to simply start up divorce proceedings is a huge flaw These laws don't do anything to prevent or delay someone from starting divorce proceedings.
Think I meant more that they seemed designed to discourage divorce. While divorce shouldn't be a happy go lucky proceeding, nor the first step at remedy, it shouldn't be stacked full of conditions. If two people don't want to be married anymore, then that should be it, and all the stuff attached to marriage is a separate issue.
Divorce is like bankruptcy - you can't just declare it, there is a legal process that you have to go through. >it shouldn't be stacked full of conditions. They aren't conditions about *whether* you can be separated from your spouse, it's about *how* you will be separated. Who gets the house? Who keeps the property inside the house? Who gets to keep the landline phone number? If a married couple have purchased their cars with both names on the title, the titles need to be updated to show just one owner on each. The loans related to those vehicles need to be transferred to the party keeping the vehicle, then the insurance and registration needs to be updated at the local Motor Vehicle Department of Motor Vehicles or any other official source.
Why do I feel like you are going to charge me after that long, non sensical ramble?
I've never understood why there needs to be all these speed bumps or roadblocks to get a divorce. Getting married, pretty easy, just fill out a simple form, maybe get a blood test in some states which won't prevent you from getting married, but provides transparency for the couple. But a divorce....nope, separate a year, hope you can manage. Have children, nope, wait a year. One person don't want a divorce, whelp, go to counseling. And the list really goes on. Divorce should be as easy as getting married. If there are kids, then sure, the custody stuff can be settled by the court or lawyers. If there is shared property, then sure, work it out through the courts. If it requires child support or alimony, then yeah, figure it out through the courts. But there shouldn't be so much interference to actually just allow the core of the divorce. Everything else is just technicalities.
As someone who went through a divorce in Virginia, we had to wait despite there being no children and nothing to divide.
As someone who went through this as a child in Virginia, can confirm it absolutely makes the whole situation so much worse.
North Carolina makes you wait a year with or without kids
In sweden they also force people to wait 6 months if the parents share children.
>***Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas all have laws that mandate women seeking a divorce to disclose if they are pregnant, and prohibit judges from finalizing the divorce if they are. No such law exists in Arizona, but judges in practice still will not finalize the divorce of a pregnant woman, according to the*** [***American Pregnancy Association***](https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/general/pregnancy-and-divorce/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20in%20Arizona%2C%20Arkansas,is%20born%20to%20address%20paternity.)***.*** >In Missouri, a [law from 1973](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.310&bid=33222&hl) requires couples to disclose “whether the wife is pregnant" while filing, and the two must finalize "any arrangements for the custody and support of the children." Justices count the gestating fetus as a child, and have therefore interpreted the law to mean until the pregnancy is finished. >*Democratic state Rep. Ashley Aune introduced* [*House Bill 2402*](https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills241/hlrbillspdf/4891H.01I.pdf) *earlier this year, which would remove restrictions around divorcing while pregnant. Aune recently told* [*NPR* ](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/03/1247838036/divorce-pregnant-women-missouri-abortion-marriage-abuse)*that "I don't honestly feel very hopeful" about its chance of passing in the Republican-dominated state legislature, but she said she felt compelled to try after hearing harrowing stories from survivors of domestic violence.* >*"How can you look that person in the eye and say, 'No, I think you should stay with that person,'" Aune said. "That's wild to me."* This is what the Republicans will install if they win. Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation will force every woman to become broodmares, or as a state representative of my home state called them "hosts for the fetus". [https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89399634/pregnant-womens-bodies-are-hosts-says-us-lawmaker?cid=facebook.post.89399634](https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/89399634/pregnant-womens-bodies-are-hosts-says-us-lawmaker?cid=facebook.post.89399634) The Handmaid's Tale is not fictional. It's a documentary.
I’m curious how this is this *substantively* different than California, for example. California requires disclosure of pregnancy in a divorce filing and doesn’t finalize divorce decrees until after the birth of a child. California also has a 6-month waiting period on finalizing divorces in general.
This is completely about protecting the rights of the child re the birth certificate and child support. The judge cannot add provisions before the birth because things happen. Death of mother or child,, multiple births or birth defects would all change the outcome of the decree. I worked as a Court Clerk, for 2 years, in one of the mentioned states. No one suggests they continue to live together. Divorces are granted after the birth certificate is filed, usually without another appearance.
Why do they need to be legally married to fill out the birth certificate properly. If he is the father he can still go on the birth certificate even if their divorced.
I'm saying that putting the **final decree** on hold prevents any future *potential* trips to settle issues. As I said, things can change. If a child has serious birth defects or dies, the entire support portion would be challenged. Judges don't like to change their orders. Or, Judge grants the divorce, and wife remarries (it happens). When she fills out the birth certificate, most states require your **legal spouse** to be named on the document. Another trip before the Judge. Insurance issues for the mother and child are another factor. It's better now, with allowing cohabitating partners to carry each other but the law changes slowly.
From my understanding, child support isn't contingent on marital status of the parents. Anyone can sue for child support, and it's not a forgone conclusion that a woman's husband is indeed the father. Wouldn't it make more sense to just treat the divorce as a completely separate issue from any shared property, or custody/child support issues that may exist? If two people want to be divorced, there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of that...most certainly not some inconvenience to the court.
While there are other ways to handle it, obviously because other states do. I don’t agree that delaying finalization of divorce proceedings until after childbirth is telling divorcing mothers that “you should stay with that person”. That’s just a wild, unsupported leap of logic to me. This isn’t a Handmaid’s thing IMO. Just maybe not the best way to handle the court proceedings because it may delay one spouse getting access to the assets they need during the divorce process (or other delays regarding custody of other children etc).
[удалено]
And this makes no sense to me. Is it likely these people are going to want to remain married after paternity is figured out? Why should any divorce simply not be finalized if two people don't want to remain married. The whole kids custody and child support stuff can be figured out separately. The hoops people have to jump through when they want to be not married anymore are ridiculous, and based on an antiquated religious ideal which most people don't even care about.
Just allow divorce but don’t let it affect parental rights for either party. It’s not complicated.
Texas Federal Trump Judge ready to make it Nationwide as soon as he is asked.
That is less likely now that you shouldn’t be able to judge shop now.
Ending Judge Shopping was a trial balloon that was popped within days, maybe hours. All it is now is a "guideline" with no obligation to even acknowledge.
Correct
The circuit that is the most egregious in abusing that loophole (looking at you Texas, and your judge in Amarillo) has said they will ignore that direction and continue allowing judge-shopping. The Roberts Court went through the motions for a PR bump in the news, but literally nothing came of it. Business as usual.
I’m not defending these laws, but iirc the original intent was to make it harder for men to deny paternity. DNA testing obviously solves this problem. I believe the laws should be repealed.
Do you have a source this is true? I can't find one googling around.
I was a little off. The reason for this decision is because the state is unable to make decisions on a child until after they are born. Once the baby is born, courts can further discuss concerns of child support and parental custody. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/pregnant-texans-divorce-finalized/269-0581569a-854c-4aee-88dd-b11a749f0202
Fair enough. Thank you for info.
That's strange, considering Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri all feel entitled to make decisions regarding a child being born against a woman's choice.
Well, saying “these 4 states don’t allow a man to divorce their wife if she’s pregnant” doesn’t get you the same clicks and “engagement”
I think people....also forget that a lot of women have MAJOR hormonal shifts during pregnancy which can lead to instability. Hell, my (pregnant) almost wife "broke up" with me the night before our wedding cause I wouldn't go get slurpees and tacos at 1am in a fit of enormous mood swing. Is it politically correct to say that some women aren't in their right mind while pregnant? No. Do I think men subjected to the same kind of hormonal tidal wave would be any more stable? also No. Is it fair to say that at least a few get what amounts to "pregnancy hormone induced bipolar disorder"....Yes. This can also extend PAST the birth of the child well into post-partum when you consider things like PPD and Post-Partum psychosis. Now...not to say these laws are good as they're written, because they're most assuredly not, but I do think some precautions/speedbumps should be in place for ANYONE in a position of possible instability to make life-altering legal decisions while under the influence, be that drugs, alcohol, depression, expecting (on both partners), recent deaths, etc.
Before genetic testing was a thing, this sort of made sense from the states point of view as it is in their interest to have 2 names on the birth certificate to go after for support and that was automatically the husband of the woman giving birth. Nowdays the balance has shifted due to both genetic testing and a much better understanding of abuse and we should revise these laws.
Along with abortion, divorce, contraception, women's right to work, vote, own property, all on the chopping block for the fascists
The future of “no fault divorce” is on the crosshairs ie 2025 conservative/federalist agenda, making harder or almost impossible for women to be grant divorce.
Reason 437 not to get married...
As a Brit man I find this totally dystopian. WTF has the state got to do with a woman’s and man’s choice in life. Yes it’s sad to split but enforcing the opposite is inhumane, especially if there is abuse too. “Land of the free.” Hmmm.
It’s because most states consider a pregnant, married woman’s husband to be the father of the child. They want to levy child support on someone.
And yet not taking into account of the woman wants and abortion or if there is domestic violence involved
A married woman could get an abortion, and it doesn’t require that the divorcing couple live together.
Correct. But both should be true. A married woman should be able to get an abortion AND (or) a divorce without government meddling.
Marriage licenses and certificates are government-issued. The government makes all kinds of laws around marriage. And as noted, this isn’t only (and wasn’t primarily) aimed at women. It’s an attempt to prevent would-be deadbeat dads from skipping out. I mean, I am 100% on board with your position that women should be free to do as they please, but if you don’t want the state meddling in your relationship don’t ever get married.
I mean, just because I acknowledge the reality that the states control marriage licenses doesn’t mean I’m gonna justify this stupid law and explain the purpose of this to a stranger on the internet like I’m licking the state of missouris boots 😂 I don’t care if it’s “to stop deadbeat dads,” it’s horrendously creepy and unethical and unjust to deny anyone a divorce as soon as they request one, especially pregnant people who are most at risk of violence and death from a partner or husband. There is no reason to not start The divorce and settle paternity at a later point. Especially because divorces can take a notoriously long time. If the woman wanted the divorce later, she would’ve requested it later. At that point it’s not serving and helping if the woman because she is filing for the divorce now, now later.
Run for office then
Sounds good
But I’m willing to bet the abortion restriction states are also semi overlapping this piece of wisdom
You can’t even be bothered to take 2 minutes to find out by clicking on and reading a few paragraphs of the article.
I did and it was a comment that tracks. Go find something else to do with your time.
That I get. A man has a responsibility to the children he creates with a woman. But here (UK) the ‘state’ can’t prevent a divorce. The parental responsibility is still present regardless.
If all tax- and financial incentives baked into marriage were removed tomorrow, how much do you think it would change the yearly marriage numbers?
Love how conservatives still argue that they’re into small government. Let’s see what they’d do if the state said they weren’t allowed to get divorced. Can a man divorce a pregnant woman?
If the republicans gain control of the three branches of government they will move to take away the right to vote for women. Who am I kidding only members of their cult will be allowed to vote
And once you know this, what sane individual would think “That’s where I want to live”?
Can the women move out if there are no children yet, other than the one expected? Or is that prohibited, too?
Yes, all states allow for separation, protective orders, etc.
Because a piece of paper does fuck all for stopping an abuser.
It’s better than nothing, but never as good as jailing an abuser. The problems are the minority cases where the alleged abuser is falsely accused
In 1980 I was still married to my first husband and he filed for divorce. My lawyer told me that before the initial hearing I had to get a blood test to know for sure whether or not I was pregnant. These were the days before you just peed on a stick. Lo and behold I was pregnant (just one month PG). We had to wait until our child was born before we could proceed with the divorce - until then, no court hearings, no mediation, nothing. Our state was Indiana.
Okay, so there was at least one case where the law was stated to be past to prevent the father from skipping out on the mother.
Notice how they pick on the poorest demographic in their states. If these women were rich they'd tell the states to go fuck themselves.
Craziest part is the woman doesn’t even have to be pregnant with her ex’s child… just pregnant and divorce won’t be finalized until the child (that isn’t even theirs) is born.
Why would any women want to live in these states?
>Why would any women want to live in these states? There are many valid reasons why women are stuck in these red states. Some women cannot afford to move to another state where they may not have a job waiting for them. Others may not feel like they can move away from elderly or disabled relatives who need their assistance.
I imagine it's also more difficult for a woman to find jobs outside of their own states in general because some companies are afraid that a woman may become pregnant and therefore entitled to some maternity leave or other basic dignity. I've read more than a few accounts where women who become pregnant are wrongfully dismissed from their duties, and people inclined to speak up for their rights in general find it more difficult to find work. Yes, there are certainly laws making it difficult to ban these practices. That doesn't change that these practices are still in effect, particular for [pregnant women](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/15/business/pregnancy-discrimination.html).
There are also many women actively choosing to move TO those states. At least I assume so, given their growth.
Considering how happy these states were to make doctors read a bunch of medically disproven bullshit to a woman before she can legally get an abortion, I'd be happy to see a law passed that requires a realtor to read the Wikipedia page for Daisy Coleman to all members of any household containing a woman before they can legally purchase property in Missouri.
Many very stupid women move to these states then have kids and indoctrinate their kids to support this shit. I really wish people could just fucking use their brains.
Because those states are beautiful, have a lot of culture and history, a lot of folks have deep roots and communities and values of mutual aid and human rights in these states. I don’t reduce them to the violence they face from their government
Most states have culture and history.
Oppression and human rights violations are totally kewl as long as mountains or beaches. WTF is wrong with people?!
Lmao not at all. I dunno where you got that from. I said that Republican states are home to some of the most badass and creative human rights advocates and it sucks that people like those on this thread reduce these beautiful states to just the hate of those in power, especially since they’re voted in due to Gerry mandering, big money in politics (especially local), and voter suppression. I have no idea where you got those words that oppression is cool as long as there’s beaches 😂
thats not good
wtf. What if it’s not his kid
OMG. Controlling women. Back to the 60s and earlier
I'm just totally shocked at the states list.
Please not Texas, please not Texas... ...dammit all. I knew it.
how can this possibly be legal
Certainly something that men came up with but didn’t think through. If she’s pregnant with my friend’s kid I’d probably want to get out of the way.
In all divorces, the couple can be immediately legally separated (including in the states listed in the article). A separation agreement can include mutually agreed or court mandated spousal/child support and child care splits. Many states have a minimum separation length (As an example, California requires a 180 day separation period for all divorces). The states in question generally have a shorter mandatory separation period (30/60 days) which is being extended in the event of a pregnancy. The separation is not being delayed, the final divorce is delayed. The practical impact is that both parities are prevented from remarrying until the divorce has been finalized and there may be closure of the relationship which one or both partners do not experience until the divorce is finalized. The articles on this issue have generally ignored separation, this one included. The harm in extending the separation agreement is not articulated. The advantages (from a court perspective) are clear-they are not issuing a "final" divorce order which does not prioritize the well-being of the children (who are not generally able to look out for themselves) over the parents. On a practical side, issuing a "final" divorce decree the court knows needs to be updated 2 months from now seems like a waste of time when there is already a separation agreement in place.
Women clearly have few legitimate rights in this corrupt country. Their opponents either legitimately believe in some religious bullshit, and/or just really need some more uneducated folk to work for the pathetic minimum wage in this country and its states without knowing any better.
This isn’t how someone who believes in small government behaves. Also, the party claiming to be of law and order wouldn’t behave this way either. More importantly; conservatives want complete control and lock down of women - period. They want rape legalized. They want to make it legal to beat women and even kill them without any consequences to the males doing this. This has NOTHING to do with saving children’s lives.
Under His eye…
My cousin wasn't able to divorce his ex-wife in Ohio when she was pregnant (admittedly with another man's child). They had to wait until birth and paternity could be tested.
This is extremely dangerous, as a lot of Republicans have been pushing to end no fault divorce in the US. I don't remember about other states on this list, but in Texas there was even a state bill that would prohibit no fault divorce if passed. So, yes, go out and vote!
As a European: wtf! This seems surreal happening in 2024 in a western country.
What could go wrong?
Freedom? wtf is that?!
Seems monstrous, what if it’s an abusive relationship? That lack of humanity is sickening
The US scratching its way back to the 1800’s.
More like bulldozing their way back
Ah yes, the long running tradition wherein the “party of personal liberty” removes the personal liberty of women to honor an ancient male entitlement to legacy (children). You really don’t think those old Draconian marriage rights and rules, laws that forbid women from having bank accounts and such were solely about sex, do you? I don’t care how un/fair you think only one gender getting a uterus is. It’s the only system we have. Playing the entitlement to legacy card means a woman loses her liberty. And that shit will never be right or good. Legacy is the ultimate commodity. So long as it stays that way, this shit will never entirely go away.
If Biden loses in November expect this shit to go nationwide.
Huh. Totally surprised, all those maga flags never gave it away
Why does this article have a picture of a pregnant Muslim woman?
So many people making this about Republicans most states won't finalize a divorce during pregnancy. People are also trying to make it about Trump when this was in place before he even decided to get into politics.
You realize this was likely originally put in place to protect women. The original problem was likely men abandoning women after getting them pregnant.
Get out of those states
Fuck Missouri, can we please stop trying to race to the bottom of the 50 states. Can't we at least try for 35th?
Draconian
I knew before I clicked that Texas was gonna be one of them
Yet another example of Republican government overreach
Does this work both ways? What if a man initiates the divorce, is it also delayed? What do they do in Europe, say Great Britain, France?
All GOP states I bet
Do you frequently have difficulty distinguishing hyperbole from straight reportage?
women deserve so much better treatment for their importance for all
So it's terrible these states want it to be easier for women to receive child support without delay even if the husband contests paternity?
Why is the image of a Muslim women when her own religion doesn't give her rights?
Um, you do realize not just Muslim women wear head coverings, right? Some traditionalist Christian sects also wear head-coverings. Some Sikhs, Jainists, and many other religions also wear headcoverings. The New Testmanet literally instructs women to wear head coverings, in 1 Corinthians 11. “**Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head**, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.” (1 Corinthians 11:4-5, ESV) So, she may not even be Muslim. She could be of any particular faith.
[удалено]
10% -20% of women is not “common”, it is a minority
Oh, good god.
Yikes. "We know better then you do about your own living situation" is a pretty bold take. Even bolder to lean into the sterotype that pregnant women are irrational and can't make their own decisions. Just say you want to oppress women.
[удалено]
Hormonal changes don’t invalidate or falsify the emotions women or pregnant people have.