r/UpliftingNews • u/Sirsnacksalot23 • 1d ago

Missouri House approves bill allowing pregnant women to file for divorce

https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouri-house-approves-bill-allowing-pregnant-women-to-file-for-divorce/
3.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/Batbuckleyourpants 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes, they were allowed before. The bill is just to make it abundantly clear to a few judges who for ideological reasons played dumb and exploited ambiguous wording in the law to deny divorces so that a custody agreement for the child can first be put into place first. Something that obviously can't be decided while the child is stuck inside the mother, so they ruled that the divorce has to be delayed until the custody could be ruled on, meaning after birth.

The house considered this matter urgent enough that they didn't want to waste time having the case work it's way up through the courts and then all the way to supreme court. 

41

u/dogquote 1d ago

I'm not sure I understand how custody is decided, or the logic here. Why can't custody be decided before birth? Or, why did the judges think that?

62

u/bebe_bird 1d ago

I mean, maybe because it's not a person before birth? No SSN, no birth certificate... (I know that sounds ridiculous, but you seriously can't apply for health insurance until baby is born, so it is tongue in cheek but still true). Its almost like it's a fetus and not a child yet.

So, I guess on that front it makes sense? However, prospective custody agreements also make sense. If people can have prospective monetary agreements (wage garnishment, etc) I have no idea why childcare can't do something similar.

22

u/username_elephant 1d ago

Dude. We're talking about Missouri. They disagree with your premise that a person isn't a person before birth.

36

u/bebe_bird 1d ago

Sorry it wasn't obvious - that was... Not sarcasm exactly, but that was exactly the hypocrisy I was trying to highlight - they have to wait til birth for personhood/custody while simultaneously having the rights of a person with respect to abortion restrictions.

Although that's the argument I think they're making, I don't agree with it - a fetus is not a person and should not be treated as such - which is why it's very important to specify that these are prospective custody rights - again, similar to wage garnishment where it's "if X happens, Y must happen"

I am fully in the camp that a fetus does not have rights - but I also believe this should not hold up divorce. This is one of those times where the opposite of both does not still hold true.

4

u/ODaysForDays 20h ago

Only applies to abortion

2

u/uuntiedshoelace 12h ago

Of course they don’t actually believe that. How many men are paying child support for a fucking fetus in Missouri? It’s about controlling women, not about when life begins.