Some women are so stupid, it’s an embarrassment:
This law exists to make sure that no baby is born without child support from the dad and a custody agreement. Nobody forces these women to live with anybody they don’t want but the law has to protect the children. It’s already a big burden to be born to a pair of miserable fucks who think divorcing during pregnancy is a good idea. So the state mitigates that burden a bit.
Heather (whoever she is) is already a cow but it isn’t Missouri’s fault.
How does banning divorce during pregnancy achieve this end?
Every way I can think of how banning divorce would do that better than other means would be one that would forbid a husband from contesting paternity, even if the couple had been physically, even if not legally, separated for months before the conversation.
LikeLike
“How does banning divorce during pregnancy achieve this end?”
Years ago an acquaintance (very, very liberal) got a job in a western state (colorado iirc) in the division about child support.
He reported very quickly that everything he thought he knew about that issue was wrong and that it was very much not a case of ‘deadbeat dads’ trying to avoid paying child support. that happened of course but the day to day reality was a lot more complex.
Part of it was that a primary goal was to find a man, any man who would be financially responsible for children to try to prevent financial support of the mother and child from being the state’s problem.
Marriage at time of birth means the man is financially responsible for the child going forward. Subsequent divorce, even subsequent discovery of non-paternal status (the child is a result of an extra-marital encounter by the women) does not change that. In some states iirc even subsequent marriage to another man after the birth does not absolve the husband at birth from financial responsibility.
It also prevents couples from divorcing so that the woman will have access to better welfare payments.
From the state’s point of view it’s all about trying to keep the welfare rolls from expanding.
LikeLike
If the child is born to married parents, it’s automatically due child support. The mother won’t have to sue, prove paternity, etc.
People who complain about this provision never even try to explain why there’s a huge necessity to finalize a divorce during pregnancy and not a few months later.
Do I understand correctly that protecting the mother is so important to you that you’re okay with putting the husband on the hook for paying child support on the kid who was conceived with the boyfriend the wife found after the separation but before the divorce?
LikeLike
This is, before all, about protecting the child. methylethyl already explained to you about the legal remedies for the exact situation you describe.
LikeLike
If there are legal remedies one way, there should be legal remedies the other, e.g. to get a finalized divorce, the husband is given a choice between agreeing that the child is his and to child support requirements or being required to provide DNA for paternity tests if he doesn’t agree.
What does waiting until the baby is born accomplish if the husband can still contest paternity? If he has a good lawyer, even with being married, the paternity challenge would happen immediately, and an escrow account for child support would be set up to demonstrate that he isn’t just trying to weasel out of child support while still keeping the money from the mother.
An even worse scenario is that the husband is the dad, but the delay in the divorce just means child support payments aren’t required or paid until weeks or months after the kid is born, when the divorce finally is certified. In the meantime, the mom isn’t getting money from the husband but can’t get WIC or welfare because she’s married, and her husband’s income pushes her over the bar for qualifying for government assistance.
LikeLike
It’s totally 50 Shades of Grey for pretentious women.
LikeLike
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1816089516463231126?t=6WYsg7iOiE9_XAXA01CAdA&s=19
Libs are so obsessed with their fantasy that somebody will prevent them from having sex because the freedom to engage in endless, meaningless hookups is the only thing neoliberalism offers them in exchange for everything it takes away.
The wailing about this provision in liberal circles is intense. Nobody can explain how it’s bad other than to references the TV show The Handmaid’s Tale.
On every level, finalizing a divorce during pregnancy is a bad idea. Yet people get so emotional about it, you’d think their favorite stuffie was taken away. One wonders why people of such extraordinary immaturity even marry and get pregnant at all.
LikeLike
There’s an entire internet subgenre of “my woman just had a baby and now she hates me”
Like, seriously people. Give it six months. I know that’s forever in internet-gen time, but… it’ll do you good! They tell you to take a whole year off major decisions when someone you love dies. Same principle.
OMG this blog has gone off the rails. Conservatives are NOT sexist! It’s those stupid, abortion-loving cows with their rape fantasies causing the trouble. Dumb whores (note that despite accusations from SB to the contrary, the only person who called Melania a whore on this blog is a conservative).
This is just proving my early observation that conservatives have a problem with women and they will never own it because they can’t see it and there is no point in arguing. When you try they get aggressive and hysterical. I could easily prove it but I’m not up to the pile-on I’ll get, knowing we will get nowhere. In todays social media world one can find examples to support any contention so that’s a waste of time.
And yes, liberals have a race problem. And yes they are sexist too (gender ideology) although that is mostly elites, normie libs dislike it. That’s our heritage in this country. At least it’s nice to be around people who don’t constantly speak about women with contempt and call women whores, skanks and hags who “love” abortion (murderous cows that they are).
Nice cherry-picking in the OP by the way. Interesting, worriesome article but the author had to scroll down to find a dumb reply to attack. How about discussing the article. No, that’s not gonna happen. Boring, right? We aren’t in Russia, Clarissa, we are in the US with a long tradition of machismo and extreme sexism that continues today.
Sybil
LikeLike
I’m a lifelong feminist and I’ve been on the executive boards of feminist scholarly organizations, journals, conferences, etc. I’ve received awards for my feminist scholarship from feminist organizations. I’m also a lifelong supporter of abortion rights. Two of my 4 books are explicitly feminist.
I don’t think it makes sense to accuse me of machismo because that reduces the window of who’s not to barely a sliver.
It’s true, however, that the feminists I interact with are almost exclusively Hispanic, and we don’t use American speech codes. My best friend, another lifelong feminist, always addressed me as “the Russian whore”. And I addressed her as “a parrot’s diseased vagina.”
LikeLike
Thanks for PERFECTLY illustrating my point. It’s like talking to a wall. Zero introspection. Changes the subject, jokes, brags, whatever.
Exactly like the progressives if you try to talk about reality to them, about the ramifications of their policies (on people and on elections).
Sybil
LikeLike
“I don’t think it makes sense to accuse me of machismo because that reduces the window of who’s not to barely a sliver.”
Also twisted my words. I never said anything about you. But you had to make it all about yourself.
LikeLike
I know it’s online but I’m still amazed at the level of entitlement people have when entering other people’s spaces. This is the digital equivalent of going to someone’s house and shitting on their living room floor. And crying about how that is somehow a fundamental right lol.
What on earth are you talking about? I said she made my comment about the nation about herself instead, twisting my words. Now she’s implying I said she shouldn’t talk about herself on her blog. I didn’t even reply to the second insult. All the aggression (intentional misinterpretation) is toward me. And now you say I was entitled, crying about my rights (wtf) and “shitting on her living room floor”. All because you can’t address my actual words and you want to win points with Clarissa.
You are such a toady SB. It’s nauseating to watch. I don’t have that in me, unfortunately. It’s why I mostly lurk here- I don’t enjoy that kind of treatment. And once again- it’s a waste of time when we could be having substantive discussions and trying to heal the nation instead.
LikeLike
Let’s pipe down a little bit, OK? SB and I have clashed and argued over absolutely everything over the years. It’s exactly what I say about not knowing the history of a space and thinking you can set your own rules.
As for healing the nation, it’s a psychoanalyst I’m seeing, not a psychiatrist. I have no delusions of grandeur.
Stuff like this is why I have trouble calling myself a feminist, I believe in women’s rights and that women are equal, but I hate it when women who call themselves feminists get hysterical and defend the right to screw around as the end all and be all. If someone wants to screw around, that isn’t my business and they shouldn’t be shamed if they’re discreet. However, positing that casual sex is the most important thing and that abortion is the only sort of reproductive rights that matter is messed up. It’s saying that the right to be a pig is more important than rights in terms of work or finance, I say this as someone who is a lifelong celibate with no interest in sex or having children
Maybe someone who has no interest in sex can’t quite relate to the normies’ interest in it.
As you can see in the US right now, banning abortion has far-reaching effects. For example, if you’re miscarrying, doctors in states with abortion bans will wait until you’re near death to perform an abortion because they don’t want to have to defend themselves in court, and I can’t blame them.
This may cost the woman her health and future fertility.
LikeLike
I didn’t read the tweets or whatever they linked to, but my first reaction at the mention of divorce ban for pregnant women is that it is a very bad situation for women who are pregnant and in abusive marriages. Often violence escalates during pregnancy or when the woman tries to leave, and often they do leave during pregnancy, because they don’t want their children abused, so I would imagine being able to legally sever ties with abusers and prevent abuser from laying claim on them and/or the kid would be important. My take is that the opposition to these types of divorce bans might stem from concern for victims of abuse.
I don’t think “suddenly want divorces” is a fair reading of the comment above.
LikeLike
Look, the issue with banning or restricting divorce is, always, that it locks women in bad situations. Maybe the guy doesn’t beat her, but he’s a gambler or an alcoholic or a drug addict. I suppose unrestricted divorce allows some people who aren’t serious about marriage to get divorced willy-nilly, but that’s a bug, not a feature. No-contest divorce is important because it prevents women from being locked in horrible marriages. This particular instance (banning in case of pregnancy) is still banning, and can have devastating consequences.
A similar reason is why I am for no restrictions on abortion. There are great tragedies that result from bans or restrictions, even though some people like to play it up like it’s only the whoring whores who whore (read: single women who enjoy nonprocreative sex) who somehow get abortions and they do it purely for kicks and giggles, even though most abortions are done to women who already have children and are often partnered.
The whole point of no bans and no restrictions is that none of us get to pass that judgement on whether or not someone’s divorce or abortion is justified. Many of us fail miserably in terms of imagination and empathy when it comes to relating to other people’s realities. This is why it is very important that neither abortion nor divorce be banned or restricted, even if “unsavory” characters might benefit from the freedom a little too much for our own tastes.
@xykademiqz “I am for no restrictions on abortion.”
Up to what week of pregnancy? Or do you mean no restrictions at all until the time of birth?
Here in Europe, countries that allow for voluntary termination of pregnancy restrict it to the first 12-15 weeks of pregnancy, apart from the UK, where it’s 28 weeks but doubts are being raised as to the wisdom of such an extended period.
Medically induced abortion when the mother’s life is at risk is and has always been legal in most EU countries for decades, except for the Republic of Ireland until recent times.
From a European perspective, the fact that there is no US-wide law regulating abortion and that until the overturning of Roe v Wade a woman had basically the right to have her fetus destroyed at any time she thought fit for whatever reason and at clinics that bear no resemblance to a real medical facility struck even the most militant defenders of abortion rights in Europe as crazy.
Late-term abortions are never without a good and heartbreaking reason (serious fetal malformation or mother’s health in serious danger). Nobody suddenly gets bored with pregnancy 8 months in and decides to have an abortion.
I personally feel that the age of viability (24 weeks? maybe it’s earlier now) or something close to it would be a good cutoff for at-will termination.
However, we don’t know what women are going through. Women do not abort willy-nilly; it’s always a fraught, very stressful decision, and we should respect their decision, provide support, and not restrict access to a medical procedure based on the judgement of people who might not be able (or even willing!) to fathom the women’s circumstances.
LikeLike
“a woman had basically the right to have her fetus destroyed at any time she thought fit for whatever reason and at clinics that bear no resemblance to a real medical facility”
What a strange assertion. Sounds like you’ve been encountering a lot of right wing propaganda. Did you hear that women are also getting post birth abortions for funsies? That they are celebrating child sacrifice through abortion as Tucker Carlson explained to Alex Jones?
We aren’t in Europe. It’s a whole different world here. Research some of the right wing anti-abortion laws. There are hundreds and they can be very scary and intrusive and cruel. Additionally not all allow for medical exceptions or they do but they make it hard in reality (therefore dangerous) or they come after women who have had miscarriages and accuse them of inducing it (abortion) and so on.
The few states that have removed all restrictions have done it for a reason. Elective abortions occur in the first trimester no matter the laws as long as women have access. Check the stats sometime. After the 7th month even in medical emergencies all efforts are made to save the fetus and it’s called birth.
Why do you think laws are needed? Because women are murderous whores?
LikeLike
“Why do you think laws are needed? Because women are murderous whores?“
I find your answer very disturbing. In my comment I pointed out some differences between the approach to the issue of abortion in Europe – I am a European – and the US which seem striking to most thinking people over here. I was not disrespectful in any way nor did I suggest or imply that women who undergo abortions do it for fun or for frivolous reasons.
However, your reaction is doubly dissonant: firstly, because both you and I are guests on this blog and should at all times maintain a certain control of language and tone; secondly, and perhaps more importantly, because, even though I am against abortion, I would never despise any woman, nor any prostitute, for that matter. I might disagree with what they do, and I might try to understand what led them to it, but I would never consider them despicable or unworthy of my compassion.
LikeLike
“I pointed out some differences between the approach to the issue of abortion in Europe – I am a European – and the US which seem striking to most thinking people over here.”
And I explained that it’s a very different environment here and provided some examples. How is that disrespectful? It’s a common misunderstanding I was trying to clear up.
“I would never despise any woman, nor any prostitute, for that matter. I might disagree with what they do, and I might try to understand what led them to it, but I would never consider them despicable or unworthy of my compassion.”
If you are really non-judgemental why would you use words like “destroy her fetus at any time she saw fit”? And what gave you the idea that that is a thing, and that late abortions occur at sketchy facilities (that bear no resemblance to a real medical facility)? This is textbook right wing religious propaganda in the US. You need better sources.
As for the last part, I think it gets to the heart of the matter. Why does the state need to be involved if not for the belief that women themselves can’t be trusted?
LikeLike
Here’s a thread about LA Times spreading vicious lies about a young woman who suffered terrible harm at the hands of dishonest doctors:
https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1816608406377234923?t=im4PQxEB7ADKdcuxfJE6Vg&s=19
Strangely, hardly anybody is scandalized at this smear campaign against a vulnerable and mutilated young woman. Where’s the outrage about sexism, about the assault on body positivity, on female bodily integrity? Chloe was mutilated at age 15. Why is this not sexism while mentioning widely known details of a politician’s sex life is?
This is getting tedious.
I’m a politically homeless gender critical feminist and a long-time fan of Chloe’s.
Yes this is sexist. Both parties and most societies in fact are as well. I will add that most normie Dems don’t know about her thanks to mainstream media bubbles they have little control over (unless they are “too online” like us). But to the extent they do know about this issue they hate it. So it’s not the same. Conservatives in the US are just way more sexist and that includes most normies. Again, I know I’m not going to win any arguments here.
Not even going to reply to the even weirder non sequitur below. What exactly are you trying to prove here?
ugh sorry about that- this platform is a nightmare to deal with – please remove one of those versions if you’d like. I think one is missing a line.
LikeLike
I truly hate these stupid innovations that WordPress introduced to the platform. I apologize on their behalf because obviously they are not likely to recognize that this system update was a mistake.
I sincerely thank everybody for sticking with it in spite of the buggy platform.
LikeLike
I never doubted that you would be horrified by Chloe’s treatment. This isn’t a criticism of you. It’s a criticism of the mainstream press that routinely does this kind of thing. That press has great power and the overwhelming majority of it is very left-wing.
LikeLike
“More than 2,000 fetal remains found last year in Illinois were laid to rest at an Indiana cemetery Wednesday…The shocking discovery of 2,411 medically preserved fetal remains in Illinois, left in a garage and in the trunk of a car, was horrifying to anyone with normal sensibilities,” Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill said at the ceremony Wednesday at Southlawn Cemetery in South Bend.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1136186
I recommend reading this and thinking deeply about what you feel and why. It’s a great tool of self-knowledge.
LikeLike
“Why does the state need to be involved if not for the belief that women themselves can’t be trusted?”
As far as I know, there are laws regulating abortions in all the countries that allow it, but I may be wrong. From 1973 to the time when Roe v Wade was found to have been wrongly decided, abortion became legal in the US purely on the basis of a judicial decision – the famous refrain of abortion being a private matter between a woman and her physician. This is quite astonishing, legally speaking, in that no jusidiction in the world would simply allow for such a serious matter to be left to the total discretion of private individuals.
It’s difficult to imagine other countries apart from the US where a judicial decision would be allowed to suspend statutory provisions for close on 50 years.
LikeLike
“would you use words like “destroy her fetus at any time she saw fit”?”
Isn’t that the pro-choice position? I’m pro-choice but realize that that means women can pay to have their fetuses destroyed any time they see fit.
It’s a kinder form of infanticide. It’s not pretty but it beats leaving newborns by the side of the road like the romans did.
LikeLike
I also don’t understand the outrage. I’m pro abortion rights, as everybody has heard me say about a trillion times, but that’s a very precise definition of abortion.
LikeLike
It suggests some cognitive dissonance– like consciously they are 100% in favor, but since subconsciously they feel there’s something deeply wrong with that, they are extremely sensitive to any perceived criticism of it, right down to fairly neutral choices of words instead of unequivocally celebratory ones.
So, same as every other sacred cow of the culture wars. “Are you celebrating this with us? I feel like you’re not celebrating this with us enthusiastically enough! OMG that means you’re judging us! Burn the witch!”
LikeLike
That’s why I posted the article about the hundreds of fetuses in that mad doctor’s house. People pretend they feel about fetuses as they would about clipped toe nails. But they don’t. They know they aren’t being honest, not even with themselves. Any normal person is horrified into a stupor by what that article describes precisely because fetuses, while not actual babies, aren’t nail clippings either. We cannot lie to our subconscious. It always knows the truth, and our visceral reactions come from it.
Actually, in the early days of this blog YOU referring to the fetus as a clump of calls. I’ve never said that. And wouldn’t. As for Methylethyl, please grow up. In fact all the responses to me come off as childish virtue signalling. Yeah everybody does it, even the right.
It’s also untrue that abortions are available at any time. After 7 months it’s called birth. We have medical ethics here you know. If that’s going on let us know and I will protest that “sketchy clinic” with you.
I’m not going to go on, it’s sickening to argue with such insensitive propagandized people. I’m beginning to sound like a broken record- you have contempt for women and you refuse to see it. Both sides and all that. When you can see your own side’s issue we can make progress. I’m not optimistic.
As for Avi, human history didn’t begin 50 years ago. Nor was abortion invented then. Women have always sought it out and it wasn’t illegal in this country when women were the main healers and when they were in charge of their own business. Look into it before you laugh. Most hunter gatherer societies have some version of it, it’s not all infanticide as you all seem to think.
If you count unsuccessful implantation of the fertilized egg, something like 7/10 pregnancies are aborted naturally in the first trimester and pregnant women add a small number (comparatively) for a similar suite of reasons (the wrong time, wrong guy, sickness, etc) but only those “dead babies” are mourned by the right, in the case of strangers lives. The others forgotten. The only difference being women’s choice- that’s the problem for you.
Okay I’m officially out of this I only have so much stomach for this kind of insensitivity.
LikeLike
As I said no less than 5 times just in the past 3 days, I always have been and continue to be pro-abortion rights.
Also, I know you are new on the blog and happy to have you but please let’s avoid the topic of who and how mourns dead babies. It’s really not on because of my personal history. I know it’s not intended but it really hurts so please let’s not.
LikeLike
“Actually, in the early days of this blog YOU referring to the fetus as a clump of calls. I’ve never said that.”
I’m not new as I made clear above I just de-lurked and I clearly remember your early posts about it. And I know your history. I’m talking about the first trimester and it’s kind of funny considering the disturbing link you posted. I can’t discuss natural abortions?
My own family has a tragic history – combine the pressures to procreate of the (patriarchal) catholic church with RH factor and it’s too horrible to contemplate what some of my female ancestors went through. Multiple stillborn babies and infant deaths. Women’s lives are complicated- that’s the point.
LikeLike
I’ve simply asked for an act of kindness in not using this specific vocabulary. Please, I’m asking again, respect my request and spare me the need to debate it.
Also, dude, with all due respect, what you contemplate, I live. Please, please, just stop. Don’t use my personal tragedy as some utterly unnecessary example or a “point”. You win, you are right in everything. I’m defeated and destroyed. Now have some mercy and stop.
LikeLike
In my country (Israel) a woman cannot get a divorce at all – ever – unless a man agrees to give it to her because of lack of separation between religion and state. The same medieval religious laws make her children from not her husband “mamzers”, even if this so called husband dumped her 12 years ago (like “bastards” in centuries before only even worse since f.e. a “mamzer” can marry only another “mamzer” and the status is inherited for 10 generations). The husband meanwhile is free to reproduce with other women and all his kids are legal as long as those women are unmarried.
This and my personal character make me very sensitive to the issue of being chained to somebody against one’s will. Were I in this situation, being unable to divorce would’ve only added stress, which cannot be healthy for pregnant women. I suppose, there are other people like that – both men and women – who feel stressed, stuck and unable to truly start (re)building their lives after the separation. The latter may even be true because of laws and complicated situations I don’t know about, f.e. not receiving help neither from the state nor from a husband who left.
The following may be relevant not only for Israeli Jews:
Israeli law requires that a woman’s legal husband be listed as the father of her child even in cases where it is clear he is not; children born within 300 days of a woman’s divorce are also registered as the children of her ex-husband,
If the woman refuses to list her ex-husband or husband as the father, the child will be listed as fatherless.
These laws lead to situations in which a child’s life is controlled by someone unrelated to them, often a person who is estranged from or has a strained relationship with their mother. This puts them at serious risk of numerous types of abuse. A man listed as the child’s father can influence a number of important factors, such as medical treatment and obtaining a passport for the child.
The laws also prevent a child from receiving child support or inheritance from their biological father if he is not legally listed as the child’s father.
LikeLike
“(Israel) a woman cannot get a divorce at all – ever – unless a man agrees”
The more I know about Orthodox Jewish laws….. the more I dislike them and the gladder I am I was not born into such an environment…. if people choose to live like that it’s one thing… but forcing non-believers is quite another….
This is one of the many reasons why Judaism never appealed to me on any level. I simply don’t get it. I feel no connection with that side of the family’s traditions.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment