VIDEO: House Votes to Tell Judges Not to Delay Finalizing Divorces due to Pregnancy

      The state House has voted unanimously to tell judges they cannot delay finalization of a divorce based on one party in the marriage being pregnant. The vote came after one bill sponsor shared her own experience with domestic violence, and how she found herself pregnant but unable to divorce her abuser.

Representatives Cecelie Williams (left) and Raychel Proudie (right) speak in a side gallery in the House Chamber after the House voted unanimously to advance their proposal meant to clear the way for pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Missouri Law allows filing for divorce during a pregnancy, but judges typically wait to finalize a divorce until after that party gives birth. 

      The passage came after one of the proposal’s sponsors shared her own story of having been in an abusive marriage, and learning that she could not divorce her husband while pregnant.

“I stand before you hoping to change that for women like me, who were, and may be, trapped in dangerous situations.  This bill is more than just a legal change.  It’s a lifeline for women who are forced to stay in marriages because they are pregnant,” Representative Cecelie Williams (R-Dittmer) told her fellow House members.  “No woman should be forced to remain in an abusive marriage, especially while pregnant.”

Watch Williams speak about her own experience on the House Floor, in the video below.

      Williams and Ferguson Democrat Raychel Proudie sponsored the legislation this year, and Proudie echoed Williams’ sentiment.

“There [is] a myriad of reasons why we should pass this bill, but in the first place the reason we should pass this bill … is that every citizen should have access and a right to every judicial process and proceeding, their medical condition notwithstanding.”

      The legislation was first offered during the 2023 legislative session by Representative Ashley Aune (D-Kansas City), who praised Williams for her bravery in sharing her personal story and getting this legislation so far, so early in session.

“It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of courage folks in this body muster up in order to make our colleagues aware of some of the challenges we face.  The bravery, the selflessness with which you carry this piece of legislation is so admirable, so thank you so much, lady.”

Legislators, visitors, and staff listened in silence as Rep. Cecelie Williams spoke about her own story of surviving domestic violence, in asking them to approve her bill to allow pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Aune said the proposal had been brought to her by domestic violence advocates, and she viewed it with such issues in mind.  Once she filed it, however, she was truck by how many men contacted her to thank her.

“Men who, for example, where serving overseas while their family was back home and infidelity occurred.  They returned from serving their country only to learn they couldn’t legally separate from their spouse due to her condition, and that was a side of this piece of legislation that hadn’t occurred to me … this is a bill that helps women, but the more you think of it the more you really understand this  is a bill about freedom, not just for women but for men, anyone who’s in a bad situation.  Having access to the courts is so important.”

      After House voted to send the bill to the Senate, Williams reflected on how hard it has been to speak publicly about what she went through, an experience that included years of physical and verbal abuse, often in front of her young children, before her abuser took his own life just days before their divorce would have become final.

      “Ultimately, my abuser couldn’t abuse anyone anymore, he chose to take his life, and I was able to start healing.  So I thought, until this bill was filed.  The more that I talk about it, it’s a very raw feeling, walking around and people knowing your story, that you’re a domestic abuse survivor,” Williams said. 

“After filing this bill and speaking about it, it became very apparent that I have a lot of unhealed wounds, and I need to deal with those, and I’m very thankful for that as well because, what better way to do it than with the support that I have, of our House members.  We received bipartisan support.  It’s really been incredible and I’m extremely grateful.”

      The vote to send House Bills 243 (Williams) and 280 (Proudie) to the Senate was 155-0.  It now goes to the Senate, in which two versions of the same language have been filed. 

Restoration of Voting Rights to those on Probation and Parole is Proposed

      An effort to allow people on probation and parole to vote has been renewed for a third legislative session. 

Representative Melanie Stinnett (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Springfield Republican Melanie Stinnett has filed the language of House Bill 617 since she was first elected.  It would lift the prohibition on voting rights for those on probation and parole for a felony conviction, unless their conviction was for a crime related to voting or elections.

      “It is, in my opinion, a small bite that makes a big difference,” Stinnett said.  “It’s really my belief that we should be hoping that these individuals can reenter our communities and be successful members of our communities, and one piece of that is civic engagement.”

      Stinnett’s bill has received broad support in the past two years, despite falling short of becoming law.  She agreed to carry it largely because of an encounter she had while knocking doors during her first run for the House.

“I actually knocked on a door of a gentleman who was really upset that I was there knocking on his door and slammed the door in my face, wasn’t very happy with me, which is pretty uncommon when you’re door knocking, actually.  People are generally pretty kind.”

A short time later, the man caught up with her. 

“He was kind of teary eyed and he apologized and said, ‘I’m really sorry for how I responded but I can’t vote and it really just bothered me,’ and we had a great talk but he was in one of these situations where he had been previously incarcerated, was on probation and parole, and was unable to vote, but he is a member of our community and he is working and living in our community and it really bothered him that he didn’t have the ability to vote.”

      After meeting several more voters who were in a similar situation, and some thought and reflection, Stinnett said she was quick to agree to carry the proposal.

      “I said you don’t even have to sell me on it.  I saw the impact in my community and I think it’s a worthwhile bill to carry and look into, and so we’ve really pushed it pretty significantly over the past two years,” Stinnett said.  “We’re not just talking about voting for president, right?  We’re talking about voting for school board, we’re voting for local taxes, we’re voting for city council, and these things that we talk about are impacting our everyday lives.  These individuals who have done their time, been incarcerated, and been released don’t have the ability to contribute to their community in that way.”

      To exempt those guilty of violating election law makes sense for obvious reasons, Stinnett said, but she has seen no reason to have additional exclusions.

      “To draw a line somewhere I think for me is a challenge, because I want everyone to have the opportunity to be reinvested in their community and I don’t want to be the one kind of deciding exactly where that line is drawn.”

      House Bill 617 has not been assigned to a committee.  Stinnett is hopeful it will soon begin moving through the legislative process.

Bill to set Marriage Age at 18 clears House Committee

      A proposal to eliminate state-recognized marriage for those under the age of 18 has been advanced by a House Committee.  Several lawmakers expressed support for the change as a way to protect children, especially from traffickers.  Others expressed hesitation about creating a roadblock to young couples who genuinely want to be wed.

Representative Renee Reuter (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Missouri law was changed in 2018 to allow the issuance of marriage license to those 18 and older, and to those between 16 and 18 with parental consent.  No licenses may be issued to couples in which either party is younger than 16. 

      The sponsor of House Bill 1200, Representative Renee Reuter (R-Imperial), said the 2018 change was an improvement, but it did not go far enough.

      “There are problems in Missouri with human trafficking and … marrying young people off is one way to lock them in to sex trafficking for a while,” Reuter told the Committee on Children and Families.  “We have to protect people from being trafficked, and so because of that I think we need to look at the law a little differently and I think we need to protect these women, mainly women, who are being damaged by the marriage laws that we have today.”

      She said people who get married younger than 18 are trapped.

      “One cannot get divorced in the State of Missouri until you’re over 18, so should you get married at 16, you’re stuck in that marriage because there’s no way to divorce until you’re 18,” added Reuter, who is an attorney. 

      Reuter cited the stories of women who married when younger than 18 and found themselves in situations of abuse from which they couldn’t escape.

      “They were beaten, raped, and forced into sexual relationships with other people and it just got so bad that they ran away.  When they ran away they would get picked up by authorities, and the first thing they would do is take them home to their husband.  They wouldn’t take them to their parents, they would take them home to their husband … because they were married, and that was just a repeating scenario, and what would happen when they get back is things would even get worse.  They just saw this as a way that they couldn’t get out of, they couldn’t get out of the marriage.  Sometimes [their husband] would put them on a plane and take them to another country and they couldn’t get back.  This is a real problem for people who are caught up in it.  The marriage itself becomes the chains that are around the wrist, to keep them in this situation, and that’s not what marriage is supposed to be about.”

      Some on the committee expressed opposition, saying they know people who were wed when younger than 18.

      “I have multiple friends who have been married at 16, 17 years old and have amazing marriages,” said Representative Mike Costlow (R-Dardenne Prairie), but he said that was only part of his objection.  His greater concern, he said, was about legal recognition for young families.

      “Our age of consent law here in Missouri begins at 17.  [For this bill to become law] would mean that we are saying you can legally go out, have sex, get pregnant, create a family unit, but you cannot get married to be recognized under the law that way, at 17.”

      Some, like Carthage Republican Cathy Jo Loy, wondered whether the legislation could include an exception for marriages that are not in some way coerced.

      “Right now I’m supportive of this bill, but I’m really having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that not all young marriages are that situation.”

      Representative Ann Kelley (R-Lamar) said HB 1200 could result in a law that misses its target.

“If you’re going to do something bad, you’re going to do it no matter what, right … so who pays for it?  The people that are wanting to get married for the right reasons, they’re the ones that are paying for it.  I understand where you’re coming from, I just wish there were some exceptions or something in here to allow the ones that have good intentions to go ahead and get married.”

      Upon hearing those concerns, Reuter suggested that her colleagues consider another way to look at such situations.

       “In the Catholic church, you can get a divorce under Missouri law but the church does not recognize it unless you get an annulment, and to me they could come up with something like that within the church, but within the law I think we need to take this approach.”

      Ozark Republican Jamie Gragg said the bill is in line with what has been the focus of the Committee on Children and Families in recent years.

“My grandparents were married at 14.  We don’t live in the same world today, anymore, and our ultimate goal, and I think everything we’ve done here in this committee this whole year is protecting children, and that’s where our focus has to be and I think that your bill is doing just that … [regardless of] what used to be or what is allowed in other countries or other religions, here in America we have to protect the kids.  We have to.”

      The Committee’s top Democrat, Raychel Proudie (Ferguson), said there are parallels between what this bill seeks to address, and the fact that judges in Missouri typically refuse to finalize a divorce if one party in the marriage is pregnant.  That has effectively prevented pregnant women in abusive relationships from being able to divorce their partner. 

      “If you’re not 18, regardless of what your situation is currently you just have to be there, and if you’re pregnant you really have to just be there, so it’s a bad situation all around.”      

      Proudie is one of the sponsors of a bill to deal with that situation, which was recently advanced by the Children and Families Committee.

      Committee chair Holly Jones (R-Eureka) illustrated a further point in support of HB 1200.  She asked Reuter, “Is there another contract that we can enter into under the age of 18 that’s legally binding?”

“I am not aware of any,” Reuter said.

      A Senate version of this legislation made it to the House in April last year but did not reach the Governor’s desk.

      In spite of the concerns that were voiced, HB 1200 was passed out of the committee with a 15-0 vote.  The legislation now goes to another committee which could vote to send it to the full House.