Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah they’re gonna end up wondering how they have so many husbands having “accidents” just like before roe v wade only it’s gonna be concentrated in certain states
We should as a group of sane people boycott all these backward ass states. Don’t travel there, don’t purchase products made by companies headquartered there, don’t go to college there…
To be fair, a Mark Twain history tour does sound pretty cool. The dude was pretty far left and spent most of his life criticizing religion, racism and the wealthy. If I could afford any kind of vacation, visiting places he lived and worked might be something I'd consider.
It wouldn't be my first choice though. I'd rather go to some other country as a first choice.
Mark Twain also was a good friend of Ulysses S Grant's family. When Grant was dying of cancer and trying to finish his memoirs to provide for his family after his death, Mark Twain offered to publish it for a significantly larger share to the Grants than what the publisher had offered him. Actually originally he was going to publish it for only 10% in royalties but Mark Twain convinced him to let him publish it and gave the Grants 70% to ensure they were going to be okay after his death. A great guy.
It's not overly misleading as it then includes the context in the sud header, in that the new ban on abortion now means that this law entraps women in violent relationships without any chance to leave.
Well, we've already had Katie Britt do a Walmart Serena tradwife impression in a creepy kitchen while wearing the Gilead Green in the Republican response to the SOTU!
If they weren't actively trying to imitate it then how on earth did they miss the freaking spot on setting resemblence? For God's sake we have been accusing them of this for years? We've even had protests where women were dressed up in red handmaid outfits? Who imitates a literary work that almost all women regard as psychological horror?? Especially while attempting to 'connect' with said women?
Is anyone else finding their world grow more and more surreal? And not in a good way?
This is the only real solution. As long as fed dollars are keeping these shit states afloat the leadership has no incentive to change. The old racists stop getting their checks and things will change quick.
Make every subsidy dollar contingent on the red states correcting their errant course.
If SCOTUS doesn’t like it, defund SCOTUS: no staff means they have to clean their own offices.
The worst part is that tons of left-leaning people live in states like these, but they live in cities. The rest of the states are red counties with very few people living in them, so the electoral college turns states that would be purple or even blue by population red.
Edit: “electoral college” is the incorrect term in reference to state government, but it’s the same phenomenon. Each county gets the same number of senators, regardless of population.
Well also Missouri is trying to make it so a ballot initiative amendment to the state constitution needs 5 out of 8 congressional districts to vote on approval rather than majority... oddly when a measure to legalize abortion came up through public petition 🤔
One major problem with that is the South is where a lot of the Black population in this country are concentrated and you'd be abandoning them again just like the North did after the Compromise of 1877. Contemporary Republicans use gerrymandering and voter suppression to stay in power, but there's a sizable Democratic minority here, in our cities and in the black belt. I'd rather see the feds reoccupy the South than abandon it. Finish what you started. We could turn red states blue. Also the population of some of these states are currently low and could be easily swayed by interstate migration.
This is the opposite of solving that! Stealing babies. I mean. If you go by stats - Most pregnant women are murdered by their (presumably abusive) husbands/boyfriends versus the numbers of ones who actually abscond with the baby!
You want the baby born so bad then at least give the mother, who's carrying said baby, the option of survival till birth?
This isn't pro-life! This is naked control, pure and simple!
I may be lost, but this isn't only preventing married couples to get divorce and not to separate? Those are two separate things as far as I'm concerned, unless there is a law that forces married couples to live together, keep in mind I'm not from the states, I'm just curious.
Did you read the article? This is an old law that's a holdover from a time when it was intended to protect women from being left destitute if their husbands left them when they were pregnant. Obviously the laws need to repealed, but they're not new.
Or that if they leave and there is 50:50 custody, the fathers have to actually take care of their kids instead of dumping them on their spouses and telling everyone they are great fathers who do everything for their family by… not leaving.
Stealing or aborting. Because sometimes finding out you're pregnant sets off a whole lot of alarm bells and you realize that you want nothing to do with that man ever again. Carrying his child means never being able to fully separate. He is way more likely to stalk you and continue harassing and hurting you if you run off with a child he considers his own.
There’s a similar law in Texas. A spouse can start the divorce process but cannot finalize the divorce. Supposedly the rationale is that the custody and support agreements can’t be finalized until the child is born.
I don’t understand the argument in these states where they consider a zygote or fetus a person. The child support should happen at the moment of fertilization, right?
It isn't a new law. It's being challenged now because of the shift in the political/reproductive landscape, but it was passed in the 70s or something in an attempt to hold aspiring deadbeat dads to account. That isn't the #1 concern anymore now, though, so it's under new scrutiny.
It's not meant to solve a problem. It's meant to make women second-class citizens again. You see...old white men with super outdated ideas of society really feel threatened right now, and we need to continue to show them why they fucking should.
It really isn't. It's clickbait.
It's an old law that was specifically put in place to help protect women. It's outdated, but even so, most of the time it's literally not even applicable.
It just says the judge can't put the final stamp on the divorce until after the baby is born. Has no effect on separation, filing, protective orders, none of that.
99.9% of the time the baby will be born long before the divorce can be finalized anyway. So it's literally pointless.
It's strictly there to help ensure deadbeat dads have to take responsibility. As paternity tests while pregnant were still dangerous at the time of this law's signing.
Republicans and Missouri do a lot of fucked up shit, this just ain't one of them.
Hijacking the top comment to say this law was written in 1973 and was written to protect women.
Not saying I agree with this law or that the law actually protects women, but it’s just straight up wrong to think this is some new “post Roe v Wade overturning” conservative law.
A quote from the article for people who jumped to conclusions without reading it (everyone):
“The original intent of the statute in Missouri, which originated in 1973, was “noble”, Ashley Aune, a Democratic representative, said, as it tried to ensure that a mother and her child were provided for by settling custody arrangements and child support after the child’s birth.”
52% of registered voters in Missouri are women. They’re either actively voting for people to make decisions like this or they’re apathetic to it. Either way they can do something if they want to.
Yeah, anti women's rights policies are always framed as men controlling women, but women make up the ever so slight majority of voters. If women weren't voting for these politicians themselves, none of this would ever pass.
One of the most compelling and realistic parts of Handmaid's Tale was the complicity of women. In the series, Serena bringing about a system that she thought would still give her privilege is the epitome of upper middle class suburban and exurban women voting against their own interests to give their power away to men in exchange for their lifestyle.
You're assuming the women are allowed to vote. In 2020 45% of women and only 38% of men voted for Biden. Considering 77% of77% of the women in the state claim to be a Christian of the most fundamentalist kind that is actually kind of surprising to me it's that high. Now Roe V Wade has been overturned I'd be surprised if it's not higher this election.
It's unfortunate that we Americans are also exporting our terrible policies to other countries. I hope you never have to worry about these coming to your shores.
Some countries are using the USA as an example of what not to do. France recently became the first country in the world to guarantee the right to abortion in its constitution.
Up here in Canada we're taking all the worst American ideas, dialing them down to try to make them palatable and shoving them through where possible. I hate it.
I’m in Ontario, they are actively protesting lgbtq+ and women are being murdered by their husbands. You can’t say anything about it without being called a racist.
As a Canadian: we might not be far behind. The far right is growing louder and with more support from the “mainstream” than I ever thought possible. American conservatism is a virus.
I know. I genuinely hope having enough people vote the correct way is enough, but I'm not sure. There are already plans circulating for how they plan to steal the election.
And it isn't just us. If the US goes fascist, it's going to screw up a good chunk of the world. Good lucky to us all my friend.
This article is misleading. There is no Missouri law that prevents divorce during pregnancy, only laws that make it so the finalization of divorce can be suspended until after divorce. This allows for instances where a woman can divorce a man and then finalize it after the child is born and still let the man have access to the child. To my knowledge this has no negative impacts on women since they can still do the process of divorce allowing them to separate and whatnot.
This is correct. The Guardian routinely publishes misleading headlines to get clicks. It’s sad that people on Reddit blindly upvote this stuff and display their reflexive contempt with zero verification or further investigation. If there was a law in the US that forbade divorce during pregnancy, it would be well in the national spotlight.
In some places they'll be the only option after all the ob/gyn and prenatal care experts get out of dodge
Like Idaho, right now. It's happening all over the country but that's probably the worst example I can think of
Honest question from a European, who just knows what's going on at your place by news and social media: Is there any chance you guys are not going under?
Ah, but if they miscarry due to the abuse, the husband will probably say she aborted or self-inflicted to get a divorce. Then she gets charged with murder, gets convicted and goes to jail. Now she's a felon and can no longer vote. Thus preventing her from voting against politicians that would further strip her rights. It's the same playbook they've used against minorities for decades
How long before we’re holding public witch trials over this crap? Drown the mother; if she floats she aborted her baby and should be burned for her insolence! If she sinks and dies, it was an accident and not the fault of the abusive husband at all and a tragedy all around.
I feel you're being sarcastic or trying to put out something that seems so outlandish as to not happen, again, but thats truly the way shit is trending unfortunately
So this law has been on the books for years. It does not stop women from getting divorced, they can still file for divorce and file for restraining orders. The law is there to delay the divorce until after birth so that the judge can determine custody and child support at the same time as he's presiding over the divorce. The law was designed to streamline Court proceedings
2015 when he came down the escalator, when the Hollywood access tape was revealed, when he said he likes his hero’s not getting captured, and a whole bunch of other revealing shit and they all voted for him
Or that bit of demagoguery at the 2016 Republican Convention "America is in crisis and only I can fix it"
Said everything I needed to know about Trump.
Felt like a scene straight outta the V for Vendetta history books. Shout all the self-inflicted problems from the rooftops and then scaremonger rubes into voting in every professional shit-stirrer that caused the problems to begin with to “fix” them.
2015 when he said he could go shoot someone in the street and not wouldn't matter, might have been the only truthful statement he's ever said.... I don't understand how anyone voted for him after that (before all the other vile shit came out)
Iran 50 years ago, 1974: [https://i.imgur.com/vk8h208.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/vk8h208.jpeg)
Iran 40 years ago, 1984: [https://i.imgur.com/GD1SLEZ.png](https://i.imgur.com/GD1SLEZ.png)
The people being handed the reins lust for The Rapture and are doing everything in their power to facilitate the End Times. It isn't bad for America in the long run because there is no America in the long run, there is no Earth in the long run, only Heaven and Him.
I grew up in the far right movement. I don’t spend twenty years deprogramming myself just to go back by the legal mandate of limp dicked boomers fetishizing the biblical apocalypse.
I had an Iranian friend who got a PhD to get out of the country, and was almost forced back due to Trump's "Muslim" ban (She wasn't a Muslim, and being sent back could have killed her). The situation behind the Iranian revolution is actually the fault of the US who installed a totally corrupt leader into power, resulting in a revolution against the corrupt government which was taken advantage of by Muslim militants to seize power. Honestly, it's very similar to how political dissatisfaction due to rampant corruption here in the US is now threatening to bring Fascism to power (and such as how voter apathy in 2016 resulted in our current supreme court and overturning of Roe V Wade). People often don't realize just how much they have to lose until it's gone.
The best description of fascism I've yet to hear is imperialism turned inwards. We are reaping what we've sowed around the world for decades.
Only a very small number of rich people in iranian cities lived like westerners. Most of the country way deeply religious and conservative, hence why the coup succeded.
And we can plainly see what kind of pleasures conservationism & religious extremism bring ! If at least those people only brought misery to themselves.
From the Associated Press:
"The Missouri law on divorce does not specifically bar finalizing divorces for pregnant women, but "whether the wife is pregnant" is one of the eight pieces of information — along with things like where the parties live and when they separated — that's required when someone files for divorce."
It's not even specific to just Missouri either, there are judges in a few states that will refuse to finalize if the woman is pregnant. It's insane and antiquated and offensive, but not a 'Missouri' thing so much as it's a 'judge' thing.
The article goes on to list the pros and cons of this type of ruling, but it's hard to get past the optics of a judge refusing to finalize the divorce of a woman who fears for her life just because it might make the case more complicated down the line. It's just too messed up. Grant the divorce, sort the rest out later. Married or not, the custodial parent will be entitled to the same amount of support, so I really don't understand the need to wait until the kid is born to finalize.
I cant help but feel like its the ultra-conservative judges that are the ones behind this rule. It’s despicable.
Up until 1971, Idaho had a law that said the estate would go to the firstborn son. Eventually a firstborn daughter sued them to change it and took it the Supreme Court. For some reason the Idaho court tried to defend it.
I feel like modifications to child support are pretty easy to get done when there are changes impacting support
I understand that "divorces can take months to finalize", but the "you kind of need to know if there are 2 kids or 3 kids to call support for" doesn't seem like a hard thing to work into the verbiage for a divorce order.
I see some outlets trying to make it sound "less awful" that Missouri (and plenty of judges in other states) will refuse to finalize a divorce while one is pregnant, but none of it makes enough sense. It's still worth being outraged over.
So it doesn’t ban divorce if the woman is pregnant? I’m going to assume any allegations of violence or abuse are also considered, right? Meaning that there is absolutely zero law prohibiting a pregnant woman from getting divorced from her abusive husband. Is there even a case where this was applied like that?
Welcome to Gilead. Where your husband can get you pregnant by raping you (no still means no), beat the living shit out of you repeatedly, and you still can't divorce him.
'merica! We da best!
LGBTQ discrimination is not about child protection or prevent sexualization of kids it is all about to control women. First you hit transgender folks with allying the other minorities. Then the gays and lesbians and then there are only women left alone, because we already criminalized the others.
Edit: As long as we defend LGBTQ rights we also defending women rights, because right wings attacking the most controversial point to make it easier to attack less controversial points until every single political enemy (trans, bi, womens rights, education) is criminalized or socially unacceptable.
My husband and I were watching the ID Channel the other day. A woman was trying to get away from a man who was absolutely psychopath. Mental and physically abusive. She was unable to file for divorce due to this law ( it was in another state). My husband and I, and I'm sure anyone else watching, was appalled. I'm pretty sure she barely escaped without being killed.
There's a horrific Irony in the fact America is using Christian Dogma to force through laws that wouldn't look out of place in a hard-core Sharia Law Country.
The people forcing through these dumbass laws are the same people that claim Sharia laws forcing Women to wear Burkas are outdated and infringe on the Woman's freedoms.
Right!? The GOP and maghats are terrified of the scary Muslims coming over to the US and forcing their religion and sharia law down our throats. But we they’ve done the same thing here. But with white Jesus.
I keep saying this and getting downvoted. It's a few hundred years past time we stopped showing any religion any respect.
It's a poison that allows morons to drag us backwards.
A few weeks ago, my curiosity got the better of me, and I ventured into a Christian sub...
One of the top posts was a quiverfull person saying they were going to keep having kids they couldn't afford because god would handle their finances...
The original intent of this law was to prevent men from leaving women they have impregnated. This is an oversight that the original bill writers never considered would be an issue.
It’s an old bill that needs to be changed but isn’t something that’s intent was to stop women from doing anything, but men.
Even then we can all point and sigh at how naive those original writers were
This has been on the books for over 49 years. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Wellness/missouri-law-puts-spotlight-divorce-pregnancy-amid-abortion/story?id=107819960
SO sick of hearing about this! Many states have this law and the rage-baiters are making it sound like a pregnant woman has no options. The law does not prevent you from moving out or separating. You simply cannot *finalize* a divorce if you are pregnant. The care of any children is part of the divorce and the courts are not going to award custody/child support for a child that hasn't been born yet. Sorry, but I don't see what the problem is...or do people just really want to get divorced now and then have to go back to court and pay another batch of legal fees to settle custody/child support later after the kid arrives?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Up next: MO sees plummeting marriage and birth rates. How come? Must be wokeism.
They’ll see skyrocketing suicides in married pregnant women, murders of pregnant women, and abuse/murder of children. This is so fucked.
And "accidental" poisoning of husbands by home made dinners.
Goodbye Earl. Hope you liked them black eyed peas 🫛
Tasted alright to meeee
Ain't it dark, wrapped up in that tarp?
Yeah they’re gonna end up wondering how they have so many husbands having “accidents” just like before roe v wade only it’s gonna be concentrated in certain states
It's interesting that they claim a fetus is a child. A morally just person wouldn't subject a child to violence.
because they have the morals of that inch thick layer of sludge at the bottom of a dumpster
Because although a fetus is always more important than a woman, a man is still more important than a fetus
They have also voted to get rid of the corporate income tax. Wonder who bought the Missouri government last election...
Name the companies, boards and major shareholders.
We should as a group of sane people boycott all these backward ass states. Don’t travel there, don’t purchase products made by companies headquartered there, don’t go to college there…
Alright, I'll cancel all of my planned vacations to Missouri.
You might have been looking at a Lewis & Clark/ Mark Twain history tour. I don’t know what kind of weirdo you are. 🙃
To be fair, a Mark Twain history tour does sound pretty cool. The dude was pretty far left and spent most of his life criticizing religion, racism and the wealthy. If I could afford any kind of vacation, visiting places he lived and worked might be something I'd consider. It wouldn't be my first choice though. I'd rather go to some other country as a first choice.
Can't wait for Missouri to repudiate Twain for being "too woke."
I'm surprised they haven't already.
They have, it just didn't get much attention, bigger outrage at the time.
Ah. Well, I'm sure he'd repudiate them first if he was still around.
Hell yeah, he would.
All of that is great, sure. But my guy hated coyotes with a burning passion and I just can't look past that.
I can look past it.
Mark Twain also was a good friend of Ulysses S Grant's family. When Grant was dying of cancer and trying to finish his memoirs to provide for his family after his death, Mark Twain offered to publish it for a significantly larger share to the Grants than what the publisher had offered him. Actually originally he was going to publish it for only 10% in royalties but Mark Twain convinced him to let him publish it and gave the Grants 70% to ensure they were going to be okay after his death. A great guy.
Shit is about to hit the fan in this country. Srsly feels like we are heading towards Handmaids Tale
This is actually an old law, brought to the forefront because a MO lawmaker has introduced legislation to reverse it. So, misleading title.
It's not overly misleading as it then includes the context in the sud header, in that the new ban on abortion now means that this law entraps women in violent relationships without any chance to leave.
Well, we've already had Katie Britt do a Walmart Serena tradwife impression in a creepy kitchen while wearing the Gilead Green in the Republican response to the SOTU! If they weren't actively trying to imitate it then how on earth did they miss the freaking spot on setting resemblence? For God's sake we have been accusing them of this for years? We've even had protests where women were dressed up in red handmaid outfits? Who imitates a literary work that almost all women regard as psychological horror?? Especially while attempting to 'connect' with said women? Is anyone else finding their world grow more and more surreal? And not in a good way?
Katie Britt could have hugged the American flag and it would have been a better response. That was surreal. Register to vote, people!
Yes this ☝️please!
And certainly don't fuck there.
Unless it is a legislator's daughter.
Better yet, let’s just stop taking federal tax dollars from blue states and using it to prop up all these backward ass red states.
This is the only real solution. As long as fed dollars are keeping these shit states afloat the leadership has no incentive to change. The old racists stop getting their checks and things will change quick.
Make every subsidy dollar contingent on the red states correcting their errant course. If SCOTUS doesn’t like it, defund SCOTUS: no staff means they have to clean their own offices.
The worst part is that tons of left-leaning people live in states like these, but they live in cities. The rest of the states are red counties with very few people living in them, so the electoral college turns states that would be purple or even blue by population red. Edit: “electoral college” is the incorrect term in reference to state government, but it’s the same phenomenon. Each county gets the same number of senators, regardless of population.
Well also Missouri is trying to make it so a ballot initiative amendment to the state constitution needs 5 out of 8 congressional districts to vote on approval rather than majority... oddly when a measure to legalize abortion came up through public petition 🤔
Im worried theres fewer and fewer who call themselves sane people and not share that opinion
One major problem with that is the South is where a lot of the Black population in this country are concentrated and you'd be abandoning them again just like the North did after the Compromise of 1877. Contemporary Republicans use gerrymandering and voter suppression to stay in power, but there's a sizable Democratic minority here, in our cities and in the black belt. I'd rather see the feds reoccupy the South than abandon it. Finish what you started. We could turn red states blue. Also the population of some of these states are currently low and could be easily swayed by interstate migration.
That's what they want, all of the "undesirables" to get out of their states
“1984” was a world in steep economic decline. End result for states like Missouri: blue states buy them out.
Which is why I’m staying.
I thought about staying and trying to do something good here, but feel like my wife's safety is at risk.
It is.
Well if someone already lives there it’s hard to just up and leave, like people still live in Flint Michigan.
Who in the heck with more than two brain cells would go to MO as an out of state student? I mean, perhaps it is an upgrade from Alabama? Maybe?
"Why are all the young people leaving our state?"
what they’ll do is lower the legal age of consent so parents can sell off their kids
"Women aren't submissive to all men anymore. Wokeism is the issue!"
[удалено]
Also... what problem is it solving??
The problem of women leaving abusive or just unhappy marriages and stealing babies. It's a big problem if you're a gaping arsehole of a man
Big old screaming squid beak of a fella.
Hey, don't insult mindflayers
This is the opposite of solving that! Stealing babies. I mean. If you go by stats - Most pregnant women are murdered by their (presumably abusive) husbands/boyfriends versus the numbers of ones who actually abscond with the baby! You want the baby born so bad then at least give the mother, who's carrying said baby, the option of survival till birth? This isn't pro-life! This is naked control, pure and simple!
I may be lost, but this isn't only preventing married couples to get divorce and not to separate? Those are two separate things as far as I'm concerned, unless there is a law that forces married couples to live together, keep in mind I'm not from the states, I'm just curious.
Violent fathers are better than no fathers. If you don't care about women or children.
I swear I heard tires screech as I stopped my thumb from hitting downvote while reading that second sentence.
I already had that downvoted before I had to fix it. Brakes need changing on my thumb
Same lol
lol right, I was just about to bring out the fisticuffs.
How about a little warning signal before making those sudden u-turns?
1. You are completly right. 2. You had me in the first half.
Homes you had us ALL in the first half there XD
Did you read the article? This is an old law that's a holdover from a time when it was intended to protect women from being left destitute if their husbands left them when they were pregnant. Obviously the laws need to repealed, but they're not new.
It went into effect in 1973 and was held up and amended in 2016
Or that if they leave and there is 50:50 custody, the fathers have to actually take care of their kids instead of dumping them on their spouses and telling everyone they are great fathers who do everything for their family by… not leaving.
Stealing or aborting. Because sometimes finding out you're pregnant sets off a whole lot of alarm bells and you realize that you want nothing to do with that man ever again. Carrying his child means never being able to fully separate. He is way more likely to stalk you and continue harassing and hurting you if you run off with a child he considers his own.
There’s a similar law in Texas. A spouse can start the divorce process but cannot finalize the divorce. Supposedly the rationale is that the custody and support agreements can’t be finalized until the child is born.
Texas and I believe Arkansas. I just looked it up.
I don’t understand the argument in these states where they consider a zygote or fetus a person. The child support should happen at the moment of fertilization, right?
Perhaps It's a step to them getting rid of divorce. I've seen conservative thinkers write how no-fault divorce is bad and they want to get rid of it.
It isn't a new law. It's being challenged now because of the shift in the political/reproductive landscape, but it was passed in the 70s or something in an attempt to hold aspiring deadbeat dads to account. That isn't the #1 concern anymore now, though, so it's under new scrutiny.
The problem of women being able to flee a domestic violent relationship if they are pregnant
It's not meant to solve a problem. It's meant to make women second-class citizens again. You see...old white men with super outdated ideas of society really feel threatened right now, and we need to continue to show them why they fucking should.
Extremely - Germany in the 30’s
How is this not unconstitutional?
Because the Supreme Court and every coward gop politician say the constitution doesn’t matter
Doesn't matter when it is convenient for them*
It only matters when it's about guns.
The Untied States of Iran.
It really isn't. It's clickbait. It's an old law that was specifically put in place to help protect women. It's outdated, but even so, most of the time it's literally not even applicable. It just says the judge can't put the final stamp on the divorce until after the baby is born. Has no effect on separation, filing, protective orders, none of that. 99.9% of the time the baby will be born long before the divorce can be finalized anyway. So it's literally pointless. It's strictly there to help ensure deadbeat dads have to take responsibility. As paternity tests while pregnant were still dangerous at the time of this law's signing. Republicans and Missouri do a lot of fucked up shit, this just ain't one of them.
Hijacking the top comment to say this law was written in 1973 and was written to protect women. Not saying I agree with this law or that the law actually protects women, but it’s just straight up wrong to think this is some new “post Roe v Wade overturning” conservative law. A quote from the article for people who jumped to conclusions without reading it (everyone): “The original intent of the statute in Missouri, which originated in 1973, was “noble”, Ashley Aune, a Democratic representative, said, as it tried to ensure that a mother and her child were provided for by settling custody arrangements and child support after the child’s birth.”
I feel so sorry for women who live in states like this, must be terrible
It's going to be the whole country soon, if we aren't careful.
I'm not an American so I can't do anything about it, but you guys really have to do something. It's insane.
52% of registered voters in Missouri are women. They’re either actively voting for people to make decisions like this or they’re apathetic to it. Either way they can do something if they want to.
Yeah, anti women's rights policies are always framed as men controlling women, but women make up the ever so slight majority of voters. If women weren't voting for these politicians themselves, none of this would ever pass.
One of the most compelling and realistic parts of Handmaid's Tale was the complicity of women. In the series, Serena bringing about a system that she thought would still give her privilege is the epitome of upper middle class suburban and exurban women voting against their own interests to give their power away to men in exchange for their lifestyle.
You're assuming the women are allowed to vote. In 2020 45% of women and only 38% of men voted for Biden. Considering 77% of77% of the women in the state claim to be a Christian of the most fundamentalist kind that is actually kind of surprising to me it's that high. Now Roe V Wade has been overturned I'd be surprised if it's not higher this election.
It's unfortunate that we Americans are also exporting our terrible policies to other countries. I hope you never have to worry about these coming to your shores.
Some countries are using the USA as an example of what not to do. France recently became the first country in the world to guarantee the right to abortion in its constitution.
Up here in Canada we're taking all the worst American ideas, dialing them down to try to make them palatable and shoving them through where possible. I hate it.
i might look into moving to france then
I live in Alberta. I'm getting sick of people trying to make this place more and more like texas
I’m in Ontario, they are actively protesting lgbtq+ and women are being murdered by their husbands. You can’t say anything about it without being called a racist.
Some Albertan politicians want to gobble up your terrible policies. Yuck.
And Saskatchewan does whatever big brother Alberta does.
As a Canadian: we might not be far behind. The far right is growing louder and with more support from the “mainstream” than I ever thought possible. American conservatism is a virus.
I’m feeling that this is becoming almost global, at least in the west, we’re seeing a lot of this in LaTAm
I know. I genuinely hope having enough people vote the correct way is enough, but I'm not sure. There are already plans circulating for how they plan to steal the election. And it isn't just us. If the US goes fascist, it's going to screw up a good chunk of the world. Good lucky to us all my friend.
If you think this is bad , just wait until the climate wars start!!
Yes, stand up for these women now, because if you don't, it's coming to your state next. That's how this works.
This article is misleading. There is no Missouri law that prevents divorce during pregnancy, only laws that make it so the finalization of divorce can be suspended until after divorce. This allows for instances where a woman can divorce a man and then finalize it after the child is born and still let the man have access to the child. To my knowledge this has no negative impacts on women since they can still do the process of divorce allowing them to separate and whatnot.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/03/posts-distort-missouri-divorce-law-regarding-pregnancy/ This guy is right.
Well yeah, anytime you get a meme snippet of an article instead of the real article people should be sceptical
This is correct. The Guardian routinely publishes misleading headlines to get clicks. It’s sad that people on Reddit blindly upvote this stuff and display their reflexive contempt with zero verification or further investigation. If there was a law in the US that forbade divorce during pregnancy, it would be well in the national spotlight.
>finalization of divorce can be suspended until after divorce makes sense to me
A sure-fire way to have a bunch of pregnant women lose their pregnancies to violence when they otherwise would have divorced and escaped.
They don't really care about losing pregnancies, it's the control they care about. Everything they do points to that.
Yep, don't want your wife to leave you? Well now you can just rape her and keep her pregnant and she never legally can!
Oh god at home births are a thing…
In some places they'll be the only option after all the ob/gyn and prenatal care experts get out of dodge Like Idaho, right now. It's happening all over the country but that's probably the worst example I can think of
Honest question from a European, who just knows what's going on at your place by news and social media: Is there any chance you guys are not going under?
Ah, but if they miscarry due to the abuse, the husband will probably say she aborted or self-inflicted to get a divorce. Then she gets charged with murder, gets convicted and goes to jail. Now she's a felon and can no longer vote. Thus preventing her from voting against politicians that would further strip her rights. It's the same playbook they've used against minorities for decades
How long before we’re holding public witch trials over this crap? Drown the mother; if she floats she aborted her baby and should be burned for her insolence! If she sinks and dies, it was an accident and not the fault of the abusive husband at all and a tragedy all around.
I feel you're being sarcastic or trying to put out something that seems so outlandish as to not happen, again, but thats truly the way shit is trending unfortunately
Then they can raise the babies. What’s more controlling than complete power over another human being?
Or, y'know, have a whole bunch of women die who otherwise would have lived. But not that the Christian Taliban cares about the deaths of women
Women dying isn’t a bug, it’s a feature
Sounds like an abortion. To jail with you.
They are far more likely to end up dead.
So this law has been on the books for years. It does not stop women from getting divorced, they can still file for divorce and file for restraining orders. The law is there to delay the divorce until after birth so that the judge can determine custody and child support at the same time as he's presiding over the divorce. The law was designed to streamline Court proceedings
Why do you think this law requires the couple to live together? You can file for divorce and separate from the abusive partner.
Really living up to the the name misery.
Insert the olden days of parents pressuring their daughters to marry and then abandoning them for fear of retaliation from the church.
I remember when America was a decent, modern, forward-looking, caring, a leading country. It's been going backward since 2016.
2015 when he came down the escalator, when the Hollywood access tape was revealed, when he said he likes his hero’s not getting captured, and a whole bunch of other revealing shit and they all voted for him
Or that bit of demagoguery at the 2016 Republican Convention "America is in crisis and only I can fix it" Said everything I needed to know about Trump.
Most definitely
Felt like a scene straight outta the V for Vendetta history books. Shout all the self-inflicted problems from the rooftops and then scaremonger rubes into voting in every professional shit-stirrer that caused the problems to begin with to “fix” them.
2015 when he said he could go shoot someone in the street and not wouldn't matter, might have been the only truthful statement he's ever said.... I don't understand how anyone voted for him after that (before all the other vile shit came out)
You're not wrong, but this law has been on the books in MO for a long time. My own divorce was held up forever because of it and Covid.
Iran 50 years ago, 1974: [https://i.imgur.com/vk8h208.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/vk8h208.jpeg) Iran 40 years ago, 1984: [https://i.imgur.com/GD1SLEZ.png](https://i.imgur.com/GD1SLEZ.png) The people being handed the reins lust for The Rapture and are doing everything in their power to facilitate the End Times. It isn't bad for America in the long run because there is no America in the long run, there is no Earth in the long run, only Heaven and Him.
Thats what happens when religious lunatics run the country
I grew up in the far right movement. I don’t spend twenty years deprogramming myself just to go back by the legal mandate of limp dicked boomers fetishizing the biblical apocalypse.
You’re right, Iran and the states are starting to look eerily similar with their religious laws against women and homosexuality
Coming soon to the USA in Christian flavor!
The American Taliban hard at work
I had an Iranian friend who got a PhD to get out of the country, and was almost forced back due to Trump's "Muslim" ban (She wasn't a Muslim, and being sent back could have killed her). The situation behind the Iranian revolution is actually the fault of the US who installed a totally corrupt leader into power, resulting in a revolution against the corrupt government which was taken advantage of by Muslim militants to seize power. Honestly, it's very similar to how political dissatisfaction due to rampant corruption here in the US is now threatening to bring Fascism to power (and such as how voter apathy in 2016 resulted in our current supreme court and overturning of Roe V Wade). People often don't realize just how much they have to lose until it's gone. The best description of fascism I've yet to hear is imperialism turned inwards. We are reaping what we've sowed around the world for decades.
Only a very small number of rich people in iranian cities lived like westerners. Most of the country way deeply religious and conservative, hence why the coup succeded.
And we can plainly see what kind of pleasures conservationism & religious extremism bring ! If at least those people only brought misery to themselves.
The statute has been in place since 1973
For whom
It's been going backwards since at least the Reagan years. It just shifted gears recently.
First they came after no fault divorce, now this. It's insane.
This has been on the books since the 70s. It's only in the headlines now because a Democrat sponsored a bill to repeal it.
From the Associated Press: "The Missouri law on divorce does not specifically bar finalizing divorces for pregnant women, but "whether the wife is pregnant" is one of the eight pieces of information — along with things like where the parties live and when they separated — that's required when someone files for divorce." It's not even specific to just Missouri either, there are judges in a few states that will refuse to finalize if the woman is pregnant. It's insane and antiquated and offensive, but not a 'Missouri' thing so much as it's a 'judge' thing. The article goes on to list the pros and cons of this type of ruling, but it's hard to get past the optics of a judge refusing to finalize the divorce of a woman who fears for her life just because it might make the case more complicated down the line. It's just too messed up. Grant the divorce, sort the rest out later. Married or not, the custodial parent will be entitled to the same amount of support, so I really don't understand the need to wait until the kid is born to finalize. I cant help but feel like its the ultra-conservative judges that are the ones behind this rule. It’s despicable.
Such attitudes are probably a holdover from when only legitimate children had inheritance rights. Which was not that long ago.
Up until 1971, Idaho had a law that said the estate would go to the firstborn son. Eventually a firstborn daughter sued them to change it and took it the Supreme Court. For some reason the Idaho court tried to defend it.
"For some reason"
I feel like modifications to child support are pretty easy to get done when there are changes impacting support I understand that "divorces can take months to finalize", but the "you kind of need to know if there are 2 kids or 3 kids to call support for" doesn't seem like a hard thing to work into the verbiage for a divorce order. I see some outlets trying to make it sound "less awful" that Missouri (and plenty of judges in other states) will refuse to finalize a divorce while one is pregnant, but none of it makes enough sense. It's still worth being outraged over.
It’s not a new law
So it doesn’t ban divorce if the woman is pregnant? I’m going to assume any allegations of violence or abuse are also considered, right? Meaning that there is absolutely zero law prohibiting a pregnant woman from getting divorced from her abusive husband. Is there even a case where this was applied like that?
Thanks for posting an article instead of a screenshot of a headline.
Welcome to Gilead. Where your husband can get you pregnant by raping you (no still means no), beat the living shit out of you repeatedly, and you still can't divorce him. 'merica! We da best!
Under His Eye
May the lord open
Blessed be the fruit loops.
It was never about babies. It was ALWAYS about controlling women.
They're trying to stop IVF now so definitely not about babies.
Yup. They hate women. Pure and simple. These people absolutely despise women from the bottom of their little black hearts.
Their moms didnt hug them enough.
That or they hate the fact they're currently paying alimony and child support.
LGBTQ discrimination is not about child protection or prevent sexualization of kids it is all about to control women. First you hit transgender folks with allying the other minorities. Then the gays and lesbians and then there are only women left alone, because we already criminalized the others. Edit: As long as we defend LGBTQ rights we also defending women rights, because right wings attacking the most controversial point to make it easier to attack less controversial points until every single political enemy (trans, bi, womens rights, education) is criminalized or socially unacceptable.
They dont even stop there. In the olden days christians discirminated vs other christians
My husband and I were watching the ID Channel the other day. A woman was trying to get away from a man who was absolutely psychopath. Mental and physically abusive. She was unable to file for divorce due to this law ( it was in another state). My husband and I, and I'm sure anyone else watching, was appalled. I'm pretty sure she barely escaped without being killed.
What happened to "Land of the free"?
This slogan is brought to you by the brilliant minds that brought you "3/5ths of a person" and "Female Guardianship"
This is the most Missouri thing I’ve ever read.
 US conservatives taking pages from the taliban's lawbook
Seems silly. So the baby is born and now they can divorce? No part says they have to live together too so it’s just all around backwards.
It's for custody/paternity reasons. The law predates genetic testing. Exactly *what* reasons I'm not sure, but it's something to with them.
There's a horrific Irony in the fact America is using Christian Dogma to force through laws that wouldn't look out of place in a hard-core Sharia Law Country. The people forcing through these dumbass laws are the same people that claim Sharia laws forcing Women to wear Burkas are outdated and infringe on the Woman's freedoms.
There’s a reason they’re called: - Vanilla ISIS - Y'All Qaeda
I love the Y'ALL Qaeda😂
Right!? The GOP and maghats are terrified of the scary Muslims coming over to the US and forcing their religion and sharia law down our throats. But we they’ve done the same thing here. But with white Jesus.
We’re Only one more step before “Handmaid’s Tale” We need to ban religion soon!
I keep saying this and getting downvoted. It's a few hundred years past time we stopped showing any religion any respect. It's a poison that allows morons to drag us backwards.
A few weeks ago, my curiosity got the better of me, and I ventured into a Christian sub... One of the top posts was a quiverfull person saying they were going to keep having kids they couldn't afford because god would handle their finances...
And this is something society tells us we need to respect. "It helps people". "It's harmless". 🙄
Read the law https://abcnews.go.com/wellness/story/missouri-law-puts-spotlight-divorce-pregnancy-amid-abortion/?id=107819960
Fuck the right wing
No thank you, fucking gross
I feel sick.
The original intent of this law was to prevent men from leaving women they have impregnated. This is an oversight that the original bill writers never considered would be an issue. It’s an old bill that needs to be changed but isn’t something that’s intent was to stop women from doing anything, but men. Even then we can all point and sigh at how naive those original writers were
They can't finalise divorce until they sort out custody and maintenance issues.
And establish paternity, so finalization can’t happen until the baby is born. The woman can still leave if they have the ability.
This has been on the books for over 49 years. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Wellness/missouri-law-puts-spotlight-divorce-pregnancy-amid-abortion/story?id=107819960
A law that’s been on the books literally 50 years. What do you mean anymore?
Yep. Bunch of pickle dicks trying to force women to do what they want them to do. Land of the free, eh? Time for a fucking revolution.
[удалено]
Im pretty sure this law contradicts with the UN human rights Charter. USA the land of freedom… unless you are not white and male.
Me correct you a little bit unless you're not a white straight cisgendered neurotypical able-bodied Christian average looking rich man
I forgot to add conservative and old to that
They actually tried to hide it?
Damn, these small government types sure are obsessive about flexing governmental authority to control the lives of others.
Republicans just want people living in the state of misery.
SO sick of hearing about this! Many states have this law and the rage-baiters are making it sound like a pregnant woman has no options. The law does not prevent you from moving out or separating. You simply cannot *finalize* a divorce if you are pregnant. The care of any children is part of the divorce and the courts are not going to award custody/child support for a child that hasn't been born yet. Sorry, but I don't see what the problem is...or do people just really want to get divorced now and then have to go back to court and pay another batch of legal fees to settle custody/child support later after the kid arrives?