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

[underwaterrhymes]

I feel so many different ways about this, I’m confused.

I firmly believe a fetus is not a human. Full stop.

But if a state is going to define a fetus as a human, with Roe gone, I want them to be consistent with their bullshit in ways that actually benefit the person carrying the fetus.

But I also understand the digging a deeper hole concept too.

This whole thing fucking sucks.

[expectantsteelerfan]

Jul 9, 2022 11:37:06 GMT -5 fernweh said:

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.

I just saw an interview with her on the news, and this was totally the impression I got from her.  I totally support her and hope she follows it through and this becomes a landmark case that is just the 1st of many to challenge the idea that life begins at conception. 

[formerlyak]

Jul 10, 2022 6:38:37 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

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

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.

Sorry for the big quote. I’m on my phone and don’t know how to quote part on here.

I don’t know how TX works, but in CA the ticket being dismissed doesn’t necessarily mean they agree. It could mean the cop didn’t show up to argue the other side.

[wanderingback]

Jul 10, 2022 8:27:11 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

Jul 10, 2022 6:38:37 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

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.

Sorry for the big quote. I’m on my phone and don’t know how to quote part on here.

I don’t know how TX works, but in CA the ticket being dismissed doesn’t necessarily mean they agree. It could mean the cop didn’t show up to argue the other side.

Well yes, I get that there could be other reasons for a dismissal of a ticket. But in this context and in what people were posting they said "I agree with her and hope she wins" aka that the traffic laws of the state agree that 2 people are in the commuter lane. Plus the subsequent comments about "they can’t have it both ways and people should go after child support." Therefore, I don’t think people meant they hope the ticket gets dismissed because the officer didn’t show up. Hence my comments about how I didn’t think any of that would be helpful against forcing people to carry pregnancies.

[NewOrleans]

I am here for the irony but ultimately this game of “gotcha!” is not the flex that our bitter selves want it to be.

[dancelnow]

This isn’t the first time someone has tried this in Texas. I don’t see it changing anything. Last time it came down to the intent of HOV lanes is to reduce the number of cars. There is no way the fetus could be in a separate car so didn’t count towards the occupancy.

[basilosaurus]

Jul 10, 2022 10:10:59 GMT -5 dancelnow said:

This isn’t the first time someone has tried this in Texas. I don’t see it changing anything. Last time it came down to the intent of HOV lanes is to reduce the number of cars. There is no way the fetus could be in a separate car so didn’t count towards the occupancy.

But, children can't be in their own cars, either. Yet they count. Like, I get that physically they can be in a way fetuses obviously can't, but children have no impact on car numbers.

[sonrisa]

Jul 10, 2022 9:57:54 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

... is not the flex that our bitter selves want it to be.

I feel like this applies to anything that Trump or that court touches/touched. There are no wins. 

[wildrice]

I am of two minds on this. On one hand, I agree we don't want to set precedent that a fetus is a human. I personally do not believe or support that that's true.

On the other, at the moment it doesn't really matter what we think or believe or want to happen - women have already lost their rights. If they are going to be oppressed here, giving them some benefits in exchange seems fair. The woman in question could be pregnant right now because she was unable to have an abortion that she desired. Changing the law to allow abortion again in the future doesn't help her - but giving her a quicker route home after a long day of working while pregnant, providing her with financial support from the father, etc WOULD help her. I know that's not helpful from an overall policy angle, but at an individual level I don't know that I want to prevent those being harmed by the lack of abortion rights from getting everything they can out of this shitty situation.