@@@ Texas woman fighting ticket for driving in HOV lane

[fernweh]

Claims with Roe v Wade being overturned and and Texas abortion laws, her unborn child is a 2nd person in the vehicle. She is 34 weeks pregnant.

www.yahoo.com/news/texas-woman-given-traffic-ticket-143015249.html

[macmars45]

They should dismiss her ticket. I 100% agree with her. The state can't have it both ways.

[erbear]

I’d like to see more of this. Pushing for child support to start at conception, etc. Make them go on record with their inconsistencies.

[AAM2012]

Yessss I am here for this!!!

Can’t have it both ways!

[fernweh]

I’m really hoping she wins. Part of me wonders if she did it on purpose as a form of activism. Either way, she’s not wrong and if “life” begins at conception that needs to apply for everything.

[isabel]

Jul 9, 2022 11:18:32 GMT -5 erbear said:

I’d like to see more of this. Pushing for child support to start at conception, etc. Make them go on record with their inconsistencies.

Yep, I’ve been waiting to see if people would start challenging this and I’m all for it.

[notsopicky]

I almost never do this, and I don't recommend it on the regular, but read the comments. Law of intended consequences, indeed.

[pumpkin]

Jul 9, 2022 11:40:37 GMT -5 isabel said:

Jul 9, 2022 11:18:32 GMT -5 erbear said:

I’d like to see more of this. Pushing for child support to start at conception, etc. Make them go on record with their inconsistencies.

Yep, I’ve been waiting to see if people would start challenging this and I’m all for it.

This is where I am too. I’m all in on making them address their inconsistencies.

[isabel]

Jul 9, 2022 11:59:13 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

Jul 9, 2022 11:40:37 GMT -5 isabel said:

Yep, I’ve been waiting to see if people would start challenging this and I’m all for it.

This is where I am too. I’m all in on making them address their inconsistencies.

Yep, child support and taxes too. People should be able to claim a dependent on their taxes from the moment of pregnancy and receive monthly child support.

Obviously, I'd rather we just fix this. But in the meantime, I'm good with sticking this to the courts.

[pumpkin]

Jul 9, 2022 12:02:06 GMT -5 isabel said:

Jul 9, 2022 11:59:13 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

This is where I am too. I’m all in on making them address their inconsistencies.

Yep, child support and taxes too. People should be able to claim a dependent on their taxes from the moment of pregnancy and receive monthly child support.

Obviously, I'd rather we just fix this. But in the meantime, I'm good with sticking this to the courts.

I’m 100% with you.

[fernweh]

Jul 9, 2022 12:02:06 GMT -5 isabel said:

Jul 9, 2022 11:59:13 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

This is where I am too. I’m all in on making them address their inconsistencies.

Yep, child support and taxes too. People should be able to claim a dependent on their taxes from the moment of pregnancy and receive monthly child support.

Obviously, I'd rather we just fix this. But in the meantime, I'm good with sticking this to the courts.

And get life insurance on the fetus and be able to collect if you miscarry.

[NewOrleans]

So I cheer alongside you all, but I do wonder if we are inadvertently agreeing with them as a result? Will this make them lean in harder?

[goldengirlz]

Jul 9, 2022 12:23:26 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

So I cheer alongside you all, but I do wonder if we are inadvertently agreeing with them as a result? Will this make them lean in harder?

I wonder this too. Do we want to set a long precedent of case law where a fetus is recognized as a person?

(Not a lawyer. Obviously)

[Jalapeñomel]

Jul 9, 2022 12:26:16 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jul 9, 2022 12:23:26 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

So I cheer alongside you all, but I do wonder if we are inadvertently agreeing with them as a result? Will this make them lean in harder?

I wonder this too. Do we want to set a long precedent of case law where a fetus is recognized as a person?

(Not a lawyer. Obviously)

Andplusalso, they don’t care at all if they are inconsistent.

[Deleted]

Jul 9, 2022 12:02:06 GMT -5 isabel said:

Jul 9, 2022 11:59:13 GMT -5 pumpkin said:

This is where I am too. I’m all in on making them address their inconsistencies.

Yep, child support and taxes too. People should be able to claim a dependent on their taxes from the moment of pregnancy and receive monthly child support.

Obviously, I'd rather we just fix this. But in the meantime, I'm good with sticking this to the courts.

@@@@@



And receive death benefits in the event of a miscarriage.

[wanderingback]

Jul 9, 2022 11:18:32 GMT -5 erbear said:

I’d like to see more of this. Pushing for child support to start at conception, etc. Make them go on record with their inconsistencies.

What would this solve though?
So lets say you could claim an embryo or fetus on your taxes? Or could get child support for an embryo or fetus?
Sure maybe some financial support would help, but that does nothing to stop forcing a pregnant person to be pregnant if they don't want to be. 

I think there are tons of examples of inconsistencies and they do not care.  

If local road laws change so that pregnant people can use the carpool lane I don't see how that helps anyone. 

[ECB]

I applaud this woman and anyone who makes this kind of stand to put a spotlight on the fact that the assholes behind these laws ARE inconsistent and hypocrites. I don’t want these things to actually become law for the reasons stated - but by pointing them out, the asssholes wont change but it may make other people stop and think for a moment. It may be minimal, but it’s something.

[sent]

They will be forced to care about inconsistencies if it starts costing people and especially corporations money.

[erbear]

Jul 9, 2022 12:58:27 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Jul 9, 2022 11:18:32 GMT -5 erbear said:

I’d like to see more of this. Pushing for child support to start at conception, etc. Make them go on record with their inconsistencies.

What would this solve though?
So lets say you could claim an embryo or fetus on your taxes? Or could get child support for an embryo or fetus?
Sure maybe some financial support would help, but that does nothing to stop forcing a pregnant person to be pregnant if they don't want to be. 

I think there are tons of examples of inconsistencies and they do not care.  

If local road laws change so that pregnant people can use the carpool lane I don't see how that helps anyone. 

I know, I know. It’s more of a desire to point out how fucking inconsistent and stupid they are being. I also know that their supporters do not care 😡

[erbear]

Jul 9, 2022 12:23:26 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

So I cheer alongside you all, but I do wonder if we are inadvertently agreeing with them as a result? Will this make them lean in harder?

I think this too, honestly. It’s actually an easy give for them (well, sort of. The HOV thing is — life insurance, child support, etc are a financial hit they won’t take). It could certainly backfire. Man, I hate these assholes so much.

[isabel]

Jul 9, 2022 12:26:16 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jul 9, 2022 12:23:26 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

So I cheer alongside you all, but I do wonder if we are inadvertently agreeing with them as a result? Will this make them lean in harder?

I wonder this too. Do we want to set a long precedent of case law where a fetus is recognized as a person?

(Not a lawyer. Obviously)

No, we don't. I'm all over the place, I realize. It's just so frustrating to me. You don't get to force births and say a fetus is a person, but only in the context of pregnancy. The right solution is for democrats to end the filibuster, codify Roe (and pass laws regarding power plant emissions, among other things), and end the insanity. But in the meantime, I guess I have no problem with this woman calling out the hypocrisy.

[cosmowife]

I don’t know about this. Anti-abortioners will be thrilled to see more “personhood” type cases get support in the courts, and they won’t care whether a few pregnant people are using an HOV lane. I see this backfiring for the pro-choice movement. I’d rather see more cases like the Florida case get pushed forward (the case in which a Jewish person is arguing that the anti-abortion laws violate their religious freedom).

[fernweh]

There is valid points here. I didn’t consider the legal precedent that it sets, probably because 50 years of legal precedent didn’t mean anything to SCOTUS so it feels like it doesn’t matter anymore.

[sonrisa]

Jul 9, 2022 12:58:27 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Jul 9, 2022 11:18:32 GMT -5 erbear said:

I’d like to see more of this. Pushing for child support to start at conception, etc. Make them go on record with their inconsistencies.

What would this solve though?

I don't know if it solves anything. But it might be less meaningless than it appears at first glance.

Yes - Inconsistencies and hypocrisies in opinions don't matter. However, inconsistencies in the law can build grounds to overturn shitty legislation. If the right set of lawyers can use this and other examples to build a case that Texas abortion laws are actually inconsistent with the Texas constitution or some other controlling law in Texas, that matters. It's a gamble and I don't know Texas law well enough if that snowball stands a chance in the legal hell of Texas. But it might not be as meaningless as it seems. Some big legal moves have come from trivial case facts. 

Or it might not. 

[wanderingback]

Jul 9, 2022 23:17:04 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Jul 9, 2022 12:58:27 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

What would this solve though?

I don't know if it solves anything. But it might be less meaningless than it appears at first glance.

Yes - Inconsistencies and hypocrisies in opinions don't matter. However, inconsistencies in the law can build grounds to overturn shitty legislation. If the right set of lawyers can use this and other examples to build a case that Texas abortion laws are actually inconsistent with the Texas constitution or some other controlling law in Texas, that matters. It's a gamble and I don't know Texas law well enough if that snowball stands a chance in the legal hell of Texas. But it might not be as meaningless as it seems. Some big legal moves have come from trivial case facts. 

Or it might not. 

But I’m confused cause what people are saying aren’t inconsistencies. People in this post are saying that people should go after the other parent to get child support, death benefits for miscarriage, tax write offs, etc. They’re saying that if the right is saying a fetus is a living human then it should also get the benefits of a living human from the stage of being an embryo. So I don’t think that would solve anything, but maybe I’m misunderstanding what people are saying in this thread.

[isabel]

Jul 9, 2022 23:45:34 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Jul 9, 2022 23:17:04 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

I don't know if it solves anything. But it might be less meaningless than it appears at first glance.

Yes - Inconsistencies and hypocrisies in opinions don't matter. However, inconsistencies in the law can build grounds to overturn shitty legislation. If the right set of lawyers can use this and other examples to build a case that Texas abortion laws are actually inconsistent with the Texas constitution or some other controlling law in Texas, that matters. It's a gamble and I don't know Texas law well enough if that snowball stands a chance in the legal hell of Texas. But it might not be as meaningless as it seems. Some big legal moves have come from trivial case facts. 

Or it might not. 

But I’m confused cause what people are saying aren’t inconsistencies. People in this post are saying that people should go after the other parent to get child support, death benefits for miscarriage, tax write offs, etc. They’re saying that if the right is saying a fetus is a living human then it should also get the benefits of a living human from the stage of being an embryo. So I don’t think that would solve anything, but maybe I’m misunderstanding what people are saying in this thread.

I think sonrisa’s point is if you sue and say a fetus is a person based on the law and therefore should be insurable or should count as a dependent for tax purposes and the lawsuit does not result in a judgment that agrees with that, you could, in theory, use that judgment to make a case that a fetus is not a person and therefore abortion should be legal. Kind of a circular argument, but essentially using the hypocrisy to your advantage. But, like she said, it’s a gamble because if the outcome does favor the original argument, you’re really just digging yourself a deeper hole.

[basilosaurus]

Jul 9, 2022 12:18:42 GMT -5 fernweh said:

Jul 9, 2022 12:02:06 GMT -5 isabel said:

Yep, child support and taxes too. People should be able to claim a dependent on their taxes from the moment of pregnancy and receive monthly child support.

Obviously, I'd rather we just fix this. But in the meantime, I'm good with sticking this to the courts.

And get life insurance on the fetus and be able to collect if you miscarry.

insurance already will sent for any reason. I'm sure they would use anything and everything to prove you weren't perfectly pregnant and somehow the cause. That's already the risk women face and adding a financial incentive cannot in any way help

[sonrisa]

Jul 9, 2022 23:45:34 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Jul 9, 2022 23:17:04 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

I don't know if it solves anything. But it might be less meaningless than it appears at first glance.

Yes - Inconsistencies and hypocrisies in opinions don't matter. However, inconsistencies in the law can build grounds to overturn shitty legislation. If the right set of lawyers can use this and other examples to build a case that Texas abortion laws are actually inconsistent with the Texas constitution or some other controlling law in Texas, that matters. It's a gamble and I don't know Texas law well enough if that snowball stands a chance in the legal hell of Texas. But it might not be as meaningless as it seems. Some big legal moves have come from trivial case facts. 

Or it might not. 

But I’m confused cause what people are saying aren’t inconsistencies. People in this post are saying that people should go after the other parent to get child support, death benefits for miscarriage, tax write offs, etc. They’re saying that if the right is saying a fetus is a living human then it should also get the benefits of a living human from the stage of being an embryo. So I don’t think that would solve anything, but maybe I’m misunderstanding what people are saying in this thread.

As I said, I don't know Texas law at all. I do know that California is very clear that a fetus is not a person for HOV lane purposes.

If Texas has similar rulings/legislation it might be one of the few times Texas has gone on record saying a fetus is not a human.

There might be a Ruth Bader Ginsburg style strategy involving aggregating legal instances when Texas does not recognize fetal personhood to challenge anti-abortion legislation.

If something like that is even possible, it would take a more brilliant mind than mine to sort out the facts and arguments needed to make that claim. And it would still be a gamble. 

[Deleted]

I saw a short clip of an interview with her, and she said “it just doesn’t make sense that one law says one thing, and another law says the opposite thing” so I HOPE that means this is part of a well-thought-out legal strategy meant to challenge Texas abortion law.

[wanderingback]

Jul 10, 2022 0:47:10 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Jul 9, 2022 23:45:34 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

But I’m confused cause what people are saying aren’t inconsistencies. People in this post are saying that people should go after the other parent to get child support, death benefits for miscarriage, tax write offs, etc. They’re saying that if the right is saying a fetus is a living human then it should also get the benefits of a living human from the stage of being an embryo. So I don’t think that would solve anything, but maybe I’m misunderstanding what people are saying in this thread.

As I said, I don't know Texas law at all. I do know that California is very clear that a fetus is not a person for HOV lane purposes.

If Texas has similar rulings/legislation it might be one of the few times Texas has gone on record saying a fetus is not a human.

There might be a Ruth Bader Ginsburg style strategy involving aggregating legal instances when Texas does not recognize fetal personhood to challenge anti-abortion legislation.

If something like that is even possible, it would take a more brilliant mind than mine to sort out the facts and arguments needed to make that claim. And it would still be a gamble. 

Yes I totally get what you are saying but that’s not what I thought people in this thread were saying, hence my response to others

Someone above says "I hope her ticket gets dismissed" and has a bunch of likes. Which, if it gets dismissed then that means they agree that she counts as 1 person and her fetus counts as another, so there were 2 people in the hov lane. Then, other people chimed in saying they should also get child support, etc. So that didn’t seem like they were challenging the law and hoping the courts would disagree and lead to a legal challenge, that was my point about not understanding how that is helpful.

The 1925 trigger law from TX is so old I haven’t seen an exact copy of the text, but summaries I’ve read define abortion as removing an embryo or fetus. Just in general from what I’ve gathered I don’t think any of the laws (in TX and elsewhere) so far specifically define the pregnancy as a citizen, but I’m obviously not an expert and we will have to wait and see where this goes.