One requirement of petitions for marriage dissolution (divorce) in Minnesota, as well as divorce decrees, is to confirm on the record that the wife is not pregnant.
If the divorcing couple is two women, then the petition and/or divorce decree must, and can, confirm on the record that neither spouse is pregnant.
If the divorcing couple is two men, then it is not necessary to address the issue of pregnancy.
But what if one or both parties are transgender or non-binary? And isn’t it also legally relevant if one of the spouses (cisgender or otherwise) is an expectant parent?*
First, the question about transgender or non-binary spouses: addressing this issue as whether someone is pregnant or not pregnant unnecessarily boxes them into a cisgender or binary identity. The relevant issue is whether there is an unborn child of the marriage that is being dissolved.
As for the other issue, if someone is expecting a child, they may be pregnant with that child, or they may be the parent of that child. For purposes of the record in a divorce case, the relevant issues are (a) whether there is an unborn child of the marriage; and (b) whether there is an unborn child not of the marriage. If one party is pregnant, then the baby may be the other spouse’s child, or someone else’s child.
In the case of a husband and wife, where the wife is pregnant and the husband is not the father, that will be given attention in the divorce petition and the divorce decree. If the husband is an expectant father of a child not of the marriage, does that deserve less attention than a wife’s pregnancy?
In the end, it would make most sense for “expecting” to be a suitable term referring to anyone who is pregnant or who is an expectant parent. Further, it would make sense for a divorce petition and a divorce decree to confirm that (a) neither spouse is expecting; or (b) there is an unborn child of the marriage; or (c) that there is one spouse (or both) who is an expectant parent of a child not of the marriage.
*I would be inclined to use the word “expecting” for someone of either gender or any identity, but my internet search indicates that such usage is technically incorrect. Either the usage needs to be expanded, or there needs to be a proper term coined.