This story really makes me mad.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/09/divorce.denied.ap/
With all the wingers screaming about protecting the unborn child (nevermind the mother), why are they not up in arms over the decision of this Washington judge to deny the divorce until after the mother gives birth?
This poor woman has proven her husband beat her - he's currently in jail for doing so - but can't get a divorce until after she gives birth so paternity can be proven. The judge seems satisfied that the restraining order is enough protection. Yeah, that ALWAYS works.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Why does our government (state and federal) continue to support laws and regulations that hinder the rights of women to escape their batterers? The system seems to be set up to make it as difficult as possible to protect ones' self and ones' children from a convicted wife beater.
The safety of the child is linked directly to the safety of the mother in this situation. And I'm not just talking about physical safety. What about the stress and fear this woman is likely experiencing over this decision? Not so great for her or the baby. The author also makes an excellent point about the precedent this decision might set. I hope the ACLU pulls this one out.