General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter finishing with abortion bans will the next ban be divorce
Abortion and divorce were banned in the 40's, 50's and before. Since we are seeing a return to the past I am waiting for the next ax to fall in controlling our lives.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Also, any woman who became a divorcee was considered a slut. My best friend, who baby sat a lot, was forbidden to baby sit the children of a neighborhood divorcee because it was feared that she would get ideas about free sex and such from the woman. It was assumed that any woman who was divorced and didn't have a husband around to keep her in line would go on a sleeping around spree with all that freedom respectable women shouldn't have. We could go back to that kind of thinking.
valerief
(53,235 posts)0. After finishing with abortion bans will the next ban be divorce
View profile
Abortion and divorce were banned in the 40's, 50's and before. Since we are seeing a return to the past I am waiting for the next ax to fall in controlling our lives.
MountainLaurel
(10,271 posts)Since her parents divorced before she was born in 1927 (great-grandmother kicked out great-grandfather because he was an abusive drunk who told her the only reason he had married her was to have a place to live). And to my great-uncle, who divorced in the mid-50s.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Criminalization of sex outside of marriage.
Criminalization of using birth control.
Anti gay and anti sodomy laws.
Covenant marriage you cannot get out of.
Making divorce illegal.
Mandatory counseling for couples who are separated or want a divorce.
Criminal penalties for women who get an abortion.
Et al.
All of the above have been proposed somewhere in the US by Christian GOPPERS at the local or state level.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)I would imagine the homicide rate would go up.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)The entire conservative agenda is about stripping women of their ability to control their lives. I am stunned by all the legislative activity that will or or is doing just that.
Unequal pay for women, attacks on family planning, corporate policies, suggestions by conservative activists that sex outside of marriage be criminalized, et al is meant to drive women out of the work force and back into the home. If ultra conservatives and churches get there way a woman will not have a burka thrust on her, but her life options will be reduced by laws and administrative policies of government and business.
In many ways women are being pushed back to square one and conservatives seem to be determined by telling women shut up or we will shut you up. Recent events where draconian anti abortion and anti family planning laws have been passed woman have lost significant parts of their health care but their freedom of speech has been squashed.
I do believe women will have to openly confront these barbaric men eventually.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Amerika dewa, rikon ga ihou to nattaraba, tashika ni, kateinai no satsujin jiken ga ooku naru darou. Sono ippou, Nihon dewa, fufu ga nakayokunakutemo, rikon sezuni, sono mama de kateinai bekkyou suru no ga ippanteki desu.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)party. If people don't wake the hell up and see these republicans who want to run for president are strongly supported by the religious right who want to make this country theocracy we will be in deep shit.
onenote
(42,699 posts)but the only state that purported to "ban" it in those days was South Carolina. Odd bit of trivia -- the only recognized grounds for divorce in NY until 1966 was adultery. Its because of the restrictiveness of various state's divorce laws that places like Nevada, which had very loose divorce laws, became a destination for "quickie" divorces -- divorces that states with more stringent divorce laws nonetheless had to recognize because of the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause.
Oh, and the answer to your question is no.
cali
(114,904 posts)with abortion.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)Divorce is their kind of thing - though you might see limits on divorce settlements, I suppose.
Contraception is the next thing - they have all the healthcare and Plan B fights already, and 'conscience clauses' about pharmacists being allowed to not do their job. They will try to ban IUDs, claiming they are a method of abortion; they will try to ban contraception for unmarried people; they will claim that couples need 'counselling' before they use contraception. They will try to stop any healthcare policy from covering contraception.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Retrograde
(10,133 posts)I expect the abortion fight to expand to cover first forms of birth control that "interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg", then all forms of birth control other than abstinence. Once they effectively get all birth control banned they'll start on tightening up divorce laws: grounds for divorce will include unwillingness or inability to have children.
katmondoo
(6,454 posts)I lived in New York. That was where many movie stars went. Anyone remember Elizabeth Taylor going to Mexico for her divorce. I think it was when she wanted to marry Richard Burton. I came back on a plane full of divorcee's All celebrating. For me. I was sad.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)a divorce to be final and to be able to remarry. Liz and other stars were too impatient to wait that long.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)they have an option called "covenant marriage", from which is it nearly impossible to divorce. Sure, it's optional, but what is one partner going to do if the other one tries to shame him/her into going the covenant route?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)THEN they will start making divorce much more difficult.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)It used to be that one had to prove the other party guilty of a crime (adultery, etc) in order to obtain a divorce; in NY adultery was the ONLY basis for divorce. There was a movement to remove the criminality charges for divorce and allow "irreconcilable differences" as a basis for divorce. Made for much more civilized divorces. And let's face it, not every marriage is a keeper so a civilized end is a responsible goal. The disputes that ended in court were not on who was or was not guilty of a crime, but how to dispose of the assets and provide for the children, if any. If the parties are in agreement and there are no children, people can obtain their own divorces without attorneys.
If the RW goal is to reduce the numbers of divorce, how do they propose doing it? Ban divorce completely? Return to the criminal charges of the past? Set up procedures that make it nearly impossible to get one? It sickens me that at every turn, the RW means to be as oppressive and insulting as any dictatorship.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)stop getting married.