Woman refused a divorce because of pregnancy....

[Maiden England]

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html?state=pregnant

Shawnna Hughes divorced her abusive husband. But four days later a judge revoked her divorce because Shawnna Hughes was pregnant-- and pregnant women in Washington, according to this judge, can't get divorced.

- snip -

A 27-year-old mother of two, Hughes made up her mind in April of 2004 to divorce her husband, Carlos Hughes, 27. Since Washington is a no-fault divorce state, she thought it would be easy. That Carlos was serving the last weeks of a yearlong prison sentence on a domestic violence conviction should have made it easier still

- snip -

Things began to unravel the day after the divorce came through. The county prosecutor called Hughes' lawyer and told her that Shawnna's divorce was going to be revoked. The state was seeking to force Hughes back into her marriage with an abusive husband. The reason was shocking: Shawnna was pregnant and the Spokane prosecutor, according to Shawnna Hughes' lawyer, said that no woman in Spokane County is permitted to get divorced if she's pregnant. Not even an abused woman.

- snip -

However, the judge's opinion was that forcing Shawnna to stay married to her abusive husband until she had another man's child did not amount to a "significant infringement" under the law because Shawnna Hughes had gotten pregnant willingly.


:wow:

must be those darned activist librul judges again...
Half this country need a flaming kick in the pants.

[okieinpain]

1. good news. we need more fundies stories like this.

maybe the sheeple will start to notice what life is like with the fundies as your masters.

[rkc3]

2. Share this story with all RW nutjob women you know.

Let them know what they're in for in the New Republic.

[Deja Q]

4. More like 'The New Order'.

:scared:

[Deja Q]

3. Insane. Fundyfascist insanity. This is despicable, hardly a pro-life act.

Pro-life must also mean pro-quality-of-life or else the concept is UTTERLY WORTHLESS.

They're as Christian as much as I love to eat beef. (And I sure as hell don't eat beef.)

[Shadowen]

5. ...fucker.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Uh, people, this really doesn't have anything to do with religion.

However, in at least one courtroom in Spokane County, pregnant women are not allowed to get divorced because, according to the judge, Spokane County has a policy against children being born "in limbo." A child's paternity must be determined before a divorce can be granted. While one state law allows women to divorce at will, there is another law that prohibits the courts from leaving a child without a source of financial support.

I would say it's grossly burdensome to women, and an unfair measure that puts the state's convenience over a woman's rights, but it appears to be more of a way of getting child support settled as part of the divorce proceedings rather than getting it done afterward. It's a procedural/bureaucratic thing, not an anti-abortion thing.

I really would like it if we could progress to the point here where we know what we're talking about before we lash out. It would make our time here all the more useful.

[LiberalFighter]

7. I suppose the judge couldn't approve the divorce and...

require the husband to keep the wife on his health plan until the wife and child are released from the hospital and pay child support immediately upon the birth of the child UNLESS the husband decides to challenge the paternity. Provided the husband does have probable cause to doubt the paternity and can show it and it is not for the purpose of prolonging the divorce/custody proceedings.

As for the child born in limbo... can't they use the precedent used when children are born after fathers have been killed in action or died of natural causes? It was established that a child was legitimate and a child of the husband if born within (about) 9 months of the death.