MO proposed bill would not allow divorce while pregnant

[returntosender]

No divorce while pregnant

 

[Occams Barber]

No divorce while pregnant

A link would be a good idea.

Map shows US states where pregnant women can't get divorced

There are a total of five states where couples cannot get divorced while one of the spouses is pregnant.

www.newsweek.com

OB

 

[returntosender]

Biggest argument: no release from an abuser

 

[returntosender]

Biggest argument: no release from an abuser

Not my argument, was a part of the report. Seems to me that would be a valid excuse.

 

[RileyG]

It’s a bad idea

 

[returntosender]

MSN

 

[jayem]

I live in MO and never knew such a law existed. I’m sure in a lot of states there are quaint, if not obsolete, laws and ordinances still on the books, but are rarely, if ever, enforced.

 

[Hazelelponi]

No divorce while pregnant

I would agree for a couple reasons, first, she needs her husband's financial support through the pregnancy and for at the least a few months after.

Not only that but hormones wreak havoc on emotions and it's not a good time to enter into legal proceedings, she might be at disadvantage or more easily able to be manipulated.

Also, it keeps the husband front and center through the pregnancy and thus cannot try and deny support to said child for any reason.

I definitely agree with this law. It protects the child, the mother, and the father and the state.

(Divorce often throws existing health insurance and more out the window of life that's necessary during pregnancy too, things like this must be considered.)

 

[returntosender]

Except in an abusive husband?

 

[returntosender]

I live in MO and never knew such a law existed. I’m sure in a lot of states there are quaint, if not obsolete, laws and ordinances still on the books, but are rarely, if ever, enforced.

I believe it's not been voted in yet. Read the link

 

[Hazelelponi]

Except in an abusive husband?

A woman doesn't have to live with her husband if she doesn't want to or isn't safe.

 

[returntosender]

A woman doesn't have to live with her husband if she doesn't want to or isn't safe.

It's not easy to get away from them especially if the law isn't behind you.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's not easy to get away from them especially if the law isn't behind you.

What do you mean by law?

In an abusive situation the law is as behind the woman as is possible. A woman can press charges for assault, get a restraining order and/or go to a woman's shelter for victims of domestic violence.

The shelters also have legal aid on standby to help woman with restraining orders and other legal needs, as well as counseling.

Just because a woman couldn't immediately divorce doesn't mean she'll somehow loose the ability to press charges for assault and get restraining orders etc.

Women get those while married all the time.

 

[rambot]

What do you mean by law?

In an abusive situation the law is as behind the woman as is possible. A woman can press charges for assault, get a restraining order and/or go to a woman's shelter for victims of domestic violence.

But if the property is in her name and the man is...."a real piece of work" it can take months for her to be able to move back in. In the worst cases, it's trauma inducing but for the most part it's just a lot of real crappy unecessary stress.


Ultimately, I think the two questions i'd ask when legislation like this is being considered are:
1) Does this aid an abuser?
2) Does this hinder a victim?
If either of these answer as yes, the legislation should be squashed.
If both of these are no, then you can continue through the rest of the decision making procedure.

I'm trying to think about what could possibly be the logical reasoning behind legislation like this that basically just limits when a piece of paper can be filed.

 

[returntosender]

A Missouri law forbids pregnant women from divorce. A proposed bill looks to change that.

Under a Missouri law, a pregnant woman is not allowed to seek a divorce. A new proposed bill by a state lawmaker is looking to overturn the measure.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Hazelelponi]

But if the property is in her name and the man is...."a real piece of work" it can take months for her to be able to move back in. In the worst cases, it's trauma inducing but for the most part it's just a lot of real crappy unecessary stress.


Ultimately, I think the two questions i'd ask when legislation like this is being considered are:
1) Does this aid an abuser?
2) Does this hinder a victim?
If either of these answer as yes, the legislation should be squashed.
If both of these are no, then you can continue through the rest of the decision making procedure.

I'm trying to think about what could possibly be the logical reasoning behind legislation like this that basically just limits when a piece of paper can be filed.

I just want to point out that staying your ground so you don't have to leave the property is dangerous for an actual victim of abuse.

See, stupid pieces of paper don't stop men. (Neither restraining orders or divorce papers).

To save your life the only thing most women can usually do is hide. I say this as a victim myself.

As far as what potential benefits could be to the law I have already pointed some out. I honestly see no real benefits in rushing through a divorce while a woman is pregnant.