If it isn’t illegal for a pregnant woman to get divorced in Missouri, why do some judges refuse to finalize a divorce until after the birth? Advocates blame confusing legal language. A movement is afoot to change that.
Amber Tinker, executive director for Poplar Bluff-based domestic violence shelter Haven House, was present in Jefferson City on Capital Advocacy Day, which is held every February. While there she spoke with Missouri state Rep. Ashley Aune (D-Kansas City), who introduced legislation HB 2402, that would change the language of Missouri law to make it clear that a pregnant woman can complete the process of divorce.
“The language of the bill would allow for that (finalization),” Tinker explained. “And it’s important that this happen for many reasons.”
Tinker went on to explain she has confronted numerous situations at Haven House where a woman is unable to divorce because she’s pregnant.
“It’s important that everyone is aware of this because it’s not uncommon for a woman who feels trapped in her abusive marriage to have her spouse tamper with or sabotage different forms of birth control and to keep her pregnant,” Tinker noted. “And we serve many women who are seeking divorce because of sexual assault and/or abuse.”
Tinker noted that, based on information provided by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, the third leading cause of death among pregnant women is homicide. According to the report from the department, the leading means of homicide among pregnant women is poison, followed closely by gun violence.
The bill introduced by Aune specifically says, “Pregnancy status shall not prevent the court from entering a judgment of dissolution of marriage or legal separation.”
Tinker said the distinction is important because judges don’t finalize the dissolution of a marriage until a baby is born, and that can lead to making some women feel even more trapped in their abusive situation.
“I’m not saying we deal with this all of the time, but it is a regular thing and we’re used to it at this point,” Tinker remarked. “When a woman is in an abusive marriage and she wants out, but then she’s told by a lawyer she won’t be able to get divorced until after the baby is born, that just adds to the feeling of despair.”
Tinker said the mental health aspect is another important component to consider.
“I tell everyone that we’re an empowering agency — not an enabling agency,” Tinker noted. “And it’s hard to empower someone when there’s such a large obstacle in place. There are many ways that we can help, but we can’t help legally unbind a woman from her abuser.”
Tinker said she understands the objections and why a judge makes the distinction as to whether or not a child is born or in the womb, but she also noted that until someone has lived as a pregnant woman in an unhealthy and abusive environment, they can’t presume to really understand the importance of divorcing.
“If it’s a happy healthy marriage, there won’t be a divorce,” Tinker noted. “I’m a huge advocate for happy healthy marriages, but I’m also an advocate for doing what’s right.”
Tinker went on to note the current wording of the law traps men as well.
“There are instances in which the woman is pregnant by another man,” Tinker said. “If her husband wants to get away from her and from that situation, under the current law, he can’t.”
Tinker said she believes the changing of the legal language is an easy decision to make.
“When you consider that just a simple change in language can change lives, it makes sense,” Tinker noted. “Who could possibly be against saving lives?”
As of right now the bill has had a second reading and a public hearing on the House floor. There has been no further activity.