Missouri law bars divorce during pregnancy – even in cases of violence
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.
To think divorce during pregnancy is allowed here, but not in the US. Maybe people in the US shouldn't fear Shariah law if they are adopting even more regressive laws.
The only reason she can't leave in this situation is because divorce would grant her an equal share of assets earned during the marriage thus allowing her to afford shelter and food for her and the kid. Under Islamic law the wife is not entitled to this so would be in an even worse situation.
Of course your country may have secular laws that do entitle fair division and protections, but that's not the question.
I was under the impression the reason she couldn't leave was because she was pregnant. I'll reread the article, but I didn't notice it being because she was entitled to half the property they acquired as a couple.
You think that she's a prisoner and can't leave physically because she's pregnant? I know america is wild but married women still have autonomy, the only reason she'd need to stay is economic.
Ahh yes, the wealthiest country on Earth and if you're pregnant, it would not be economical to not be beaten by a POS human that beats you and your child.
Seriously though, had she left and crossed state lines, she could have lost both her kids.
The ex wife is entitled to an allowance from her ex husband as are the children, she is also entitled to keep the gift her husband gave her to marry her. The state provides welfare too from monthly allowance to other services. She is not going to be homeless or sick without care if she ends poorer after the divorce.
Of course not all Muslim countries interpret Sharia exactly the same. I’m from Saudi Arabia which is on the more conservative side but has strong welfare. There are conditions on which the ex wife is not entitled to an allowance such as if she initiated the divorce. The courts can force the husband to divorce her but at the cost of waiving her financial benefits.
I think most people in the US still don’t get that many countries offer things like housing, healthcare and education as a right. A woman doesn’t need to be married to be financially secure here.
You're painting a pretty picture but the reality of life for women in this situation in your country is not something American woman would accept, maybe you're the one not aware how it is in the rest of the world.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/08/saudi-arabia-law-enshrines-male-guardianship
I'm not from the US and I'm not a huge fan of their legal system but reality is reality.
This is a country that literally only started requiring the brides consent in marriage less than twenty years ago. Where women need to use the absher app on their phone which notifies and requests permission from their male guardian if they try to use their passport to travel. Let's not try and pretend a woman in the same situation as in the ops article would be better off in SA - especially as you yourself sat if she was in the same situation she would not be eligible as the initiator.
I think you should no more about Saudi Arabia. I think you are assuming that Saudi Arabia by default will be worse, but I see the differences as a matter of tradeoffs. When it comes to financial and material conditions the average woman in Saudi Arabia is better off than the average woman in the US. You could argue for other social or personal issues, but not when it comes to money.
She would definitely accept the free healthcare and more accessible abortions if she ever needed it 1 2 3
Are you sure about this? from what I know the current law states any women 21 or above doesn't need a permission from any male guardian. I know it was the case for my sister and female cousins. Either you or HRW are citing an old law.
She won't be eligible for an allowance from her husband, but she may still be eligible for a welfare allowance from the government. My sister initiated the divorce with her husband, and took him to court to force him to divorce her, and she is doing just fine financially, it helped that she was making more than him, but if she was poor she would qualify for housing and allowance from the government. Her son has a monthly allowance from the government in addition to the allowance paid by his father.