The statute, which can lead to reproductive coercion in a state that has banned abortion, has recently gained nationwide attention

At six months pregnant, H decided enough was enough. She had endured years of abuse from her husband and had recently discovered he was also physically violent towards her child. She contacted an attorney to help her get a divorce.

But she was stopped short. Her lawyer told her that she could not finalize a divorce in Missouri because she was pregnant. “I just absolutely felt defeated,” she said. H returned to the house she shared with her abuser, sleeping in her child’s room on the floor and continuing to face violence. On the night before she gave birth, she slept in the most secure room in the house: on the tile floor in the basement, with the family’s dogs.

Under a Missouri statute that has recently gained nationwide attention, every petitioner for divorce is required to disclose their pregnancy status. In practice, experts say, those who are pregnant are barred from legally dissolving their marriage. “The application [of the law] is an outright ban,” said Danielle Drake, attorney at Parks & Drake. When Drake learned her then husband was having an affair, her own divorce stalled because she was pregnant. Two other states have similar laws: Texas and Arkansas.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Conservatives believe women are property. Property does not get to make decisions. Only property owners may make decisions.

    There is no “good conservative” alive today.

  • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    What the actual fuck is wrong with these people? They aren’t even trying to hide the endgame here.

    I guess it’s time for blue states to start negating residency requirements for divorce. Just another step towards balkanization.

    • Fat Tony@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      What even is the endgame here though?

      So I get conservatives want many babies but without providing any care or (especially) pay, perfectly fuels their pockets this way. But how does this work to their advantage? You just get more abuse this way. How the fuck does that help in their baby factoring scheme?

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Broken homes feed into the prison-industrial complex, the only remaining form of slavery currently allowed in our country? It’s not just about the babies. You need to make sure they end up poor, desperate, and too broken to hope for better as adults.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        What even is the endgame here though?

        Control. Power. Compelled obedience.

      • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        the endgame is when they start saying “well I didn’t think they were gonna do that” and acting all innocent as their fascist rhetoric turns the country into a fascist hellhole thanks to their violent dipshittery

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        What even is the endgame here though?

        Suffering. Suffering is the endgame. They get off by causing those they feel are lesser to suffer as much as they can.

      • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Seriously? The endgame is clear. Reduce access to education, force people to have kids that will be born in that environment and raise an ignorant neglected bigoted class that is easily controlled and manipulated.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Let me guess: also one of those states where you can’t charge your spouse for rape either.

  • ItsAFake@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Alright, so it’s quite obvious to me now that the US government is full of people with a breeding kink and it’s enough to make bills pass, what happened to sexual deviance diversity!

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I could absolutely see many of them being in favor of forced birth for ordinary non-sexy reasons.

      If you are so broken that you think society’s first priority is the growth of you and your buddies’ investments, then it’s not much of a leap to support shitty ways to keep the working class growing.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Holy fuck, that’s been a law since the 70s! 50 years of supposed progress and that’s still on the books. How far we’ve come.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It was considered progressive at the time, passed by a Democratic legislature in fact.

      This law was meant to stop men from divorcing pregnant women as a way to avoid child support. By forcing men to wait until after birth, courts could set up child support during the divorce proceedings.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Why not just put them on the hook regardless? This seems like a really stupid way to achieve that goal, with horrific consequences.

      • Tinks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        You know, from that perspective I can understand the point of it, but there should have been guard rails built in for women to escape abusive relationships. That was an extreme oversight.

    • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think we should stop pitting states against each other in a race to the bottom and see this for what it is: working class people having their rights taken away by the wealthy elite. The more we are divided the easier it is to do this type of thing. The politicians are doing this, not the people. And they have set up and continued to prop up a system that under educated voters, while also underpaying them and blaming it on anyone else they can do everyone is mad at everyone. We need to stop blaming each other and band together and force them to fix it.

      • swab148@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Thank you. Being a Texas resident, I’m not especially happy when I hear stuff like “all Texans are delusional”, a lot of us simply don’t have a choice in the matter of where we live. Some of us are trying to make this a better place to be, but it takes time and we’re constantly blocked by rich assholes clinging to power like their lives depend on it (and they probably do at this point). Class consciousness is lifting up the less fortunate, don’t put us down for laws and policies we had no say in creating.

    • fustigation769curtain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Two other states have similar laws: Texas and Arkansas.

      Why am I not surprised? The sad part is, Texans are delusional enough to think they’re better than Florida, lol.

      I genuinely believe texans are the most delusional people in the entire US.

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I sure hope you can. What would that require?

          If you can find somewhere affordable in Colorado (unfortunately that would be in the sticks teeming wirh right wing nuts) I can highly recommend it.

      • exanime@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Recently met a Texas resident who swore it was the best place “to raise children”

        If the news are to be believed, I think it was probably a veiled anti LGBTQ victory lap

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I bet their reasoning somehow boiled down to “taxes.” The anti-LGBTQ stuff is just icing on the cake for most of these people.

          • azimir@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            And the dumb part is that the taxes in Texas are on par with California, just done through different categories. So, you pay the same for significantly worse government services and significantly fewer rights.

            Texas: the one star state

      • mx_smith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I am kinda calling BS on this, as I got divorced in Arkansas and there was never a question about my ex wife being pregnant nor was it ever mentioned by any attorney or judge. Maybe it’s only used when there is a clear sign of pregnancy or when the husband wants to control the wife who may have filed for divorce. This could be a new law as I got divorced over 10 years ago.

        • Null User Object@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Do they not teach geography in Arkansas? I guess not, so, FYI, Missouri is not Arkansas. They’re different states with different state laws.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            No, the law was passed in 1973. At the time, the Missouri legislature was still controlled by Democrats.

            It was trying to stop men who would finalize a divorce before the birth of their child in order to avoid establishing their paternity.

        • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          “I’m calling bs on this” WTF??? Are you misogynistic, ignorant, just stupid, or all the above? Your reasoning is that you didn’t hear about it personally 10 years ago when it might have been relevant to you?

          • mx_smith@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            When my personal experiences go against what a news article claims, I start to think critically about the source. I’m not disclaiming or debating anything about Missouri law, but by throwing in that comment about Arkansas seems like they are being a bit sensational to get a wider audience reaction. I would not doubt for a second if this law exists in either of those states, but it’s most likely enforced by choice.

            • STOMPYI@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Calling bs is disclaiming… think man think… your tone is strong but tpur words are weak. Why do you think this is?

        • Promethiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Oh!? A law that wasn’t in effect when you went through the same life situation wasn’t in effect when you went through it, so it’s BS?

          Was Henry Ford’s Model T car, the printing press, and the fact that it used to be legal to own people also BS because those things weren’t at the store last time you went?

          It is not a case of whatever the fuck it is you want to think it maybe it. It is exactly the evil those who kinda call BS have sown, and the thresher is reaping its way to you eventually too.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      How are you surprised?

      Did you think conservatives finally started being honest with what they wanted?

      They didn’t stop with forced births, they won’t stop with this, they want to go back to when women were literally property. Under control of their fathers until sold off in marriage for a dowry.

      Because that’s what the Bible says.

      They just know that it’s easier one step at a time then all at once.

      If they get women as property, they’ll push for other races and religions to also be property, because the Bible also says slavery was cool based on race/religion.

      They’re far right Abrahamic extremists, same as any other.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          They all have far right extremists, and they want the same things. The only difference is what prophets they follow, which I don’t care about.

          The far right extremists are the same as far as I’m concerned and I refuse to treat any of them as somehow better or worse.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            So? Hindus have far-right extremists. Athiests have far-right extremists. If you have a problem with far-right extremism, just say that. If you have a problem with Christian nationalism, then say that. Naming the enemy matters.

      • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I am honestly surprised. I don’t live in the US and I just cannot fathom this being a law anywhere. Never in my wildest dreams.

        The idea that you want a custody deal in place before the divorce, therefor pregnant women can’t get divorced is absurd and assumes a family law/divorce court wouldn’t ask that question, so I doubt that’s actually the reason.

        This law just seems harmful and incentivizes awful awful things.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t think it’s that simple.

        Am married and in long-term relationship. I still feel it’s not right for most people e.g. kind of a scam. I would never recommend it to someone because it’s too much responsibility to have that recommendation weighing on my conscience.

  • OpenStars@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    That is perfectly consistent within Missouri. In their eyes, allowing same-sex marriages is “bad” while doing things like this is “good”.

    Ironically, despite what the Bible says - e.g. in Peter 3:7 commanding husbands to likewise treat their wives with respect, and the punishment of literal death commanded for adultery.

    So they are doing the opposite of what the Bible commands themselves, while still using that book as justification for working to overturn things like Roe v. Wade for everyone else. Jesus Himself must be livid at how these hypocrites are abusing His name, and polluting the message of “show love/kindness to one another my dudes, especially those who you disagree with”. People are literally dying.

  • DancingBear@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Can’t you just lie and say you are not pregnant? By the time they prosecuted you wouldn’t be pregnant anymore. Also, fuck Missouri

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Divorce takes several months and even years. You’d definitely be showing long before. Plus I’m sure this will lead to requiring women to be tested for pregnancy before they can even file for divorce. Remember, Handmaids Tale levels of control over women is their ultimate goal hear.

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Showing doesn’t matter but pretty sure if you required women to take a pregnancy test you would have to require men to do the same, and or take a fertility test or what not. Whatever the long term goal is, we steal have to deal with whatever legal reality we are currently in, not where we would be if whoever had their way.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I want to know what happens if you’re 3 weeks pregnant or something when you file and you don’t know you’re pregnant yet. Does this law annul such a divorce?

  • ...m...@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago
    1. Move to Missouri
    2. Marry a bunch of women and get them pregnant
    3. Tell them about each other
    4. Stream the fights on TokTik or something
    5. Profit
    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ve seen this one before, they all gang up on you together and hatch a plan for revenge and the whole thing turns into a comedy.