Was going to say…
A judge agreed with her, and the June ticket was dismissed.
Still, it is annoying that state and municipal officers can drag you to court in your pregnant condition to prove what the legislature has already decided.
Almost as though the police exist to harass and obstruct the rights of citizens, rather than to serve and protect them.
The judge only agreed because if they denied, their stupid abortion laws would have to be revisited.
Technically it wasn’t the police’s job to make that kind of interpretation but after the precedent had been set they should apply the court’s decision
it wasn’t the police’s job to make that kind of interpretation
This was the second ticket she’d had dismissed. The courts had already made the interpretation. Cops simply weren’t abiding by it.
See the comment I replied to and read my whole comment
Hey, at least they’re consistent. Also, I can’t think of anybody who wants abortion at 34 weeks.
You’ve never heard of a still born birth?
Who wants a still born birth?
Not many people. But under the current laws around abortion, hospital administrators are too afraid of legal liability to remove a dead baby from the mother.
More than 100 pregnant women in medical distress who sought help from emergency rooms were turned away or negligently treated since 2022, an Associated Press analysis of federal hospital investigations found.
Two women — one in Florida and one in Texas — were left to miscarry in public restrooms. In Arkansas, a woman went into septic shock and her fetus died after an emergency room sent her home. At least four other women with ectopic pregnancies had trouble getting treatment, including one in California who needed a blood transfusion after she sat for nine hours in an emergency waiting room.
Hospital staff are being told not to treat pregnant women, entirely, because any form of treatment might be flagged as “aiding in an abortion” by the state.
Your initial response read to me that there were folks wishing for still borns.
But yeah the stories are typically horrifying, like the one mother in Texas who had the means to flee out of state to get the healthcare she needed.
I like how she admitted she didn’t think of the political ramifications and was just working the exploit she’d been given XD
In Texas, a pregnant black woman or immigrant only counts as 1 and 1/5th person though.
1 and ⅕? So more than a regular person? Did you mean just ⅕?
He meant 3/5 (the mother) plus 3/5 (the child), so a total of 6/5.
Ahh yes ⅗ … I had it wrong … Damnit!
Don’t feel too bad. I had to think about it hard after I wrote the sentence. Then I thought about it some more, triple checked my work using a fractions calculator, then finally hit the submit button 🤣
Fractions are hard. Normal people don’t think in fractions (anymore; they probably used to in days of yore).
This happened in Texas
Aren’t there laws against children, babies etc riding in the front seat? Could backfire. /s
Children and babies, not fetuses. Should be fine.
Yeah. Sorry, /s.
Fetuses are babies
Nope. They are fetuses. You can tell because they have different names.
Unfortunately, this is a bad argument.
‘Baby’ is not a technical term, and people will generally call newborns, infants, and toddlers ‘babies.’ I wouldn’t really call the fetus out of the question as another subcategory. People would not be called strange to say that it was a baby in there at 38 weeks pregnancy. But that’s a fetus.
A newborn would be ‘full term’ at 38 weeks if it needed out; not even a premie. Yet a newborn is undeniably a ‘baby.’ So why is it not a baby still in uterus?
I’m not arguing in favor of them, mind you. That argument is too annoying for me to want to touch anymore than I did here. Just, you aren’t exactly right either.
The general use isn’t relevant in the context of the law. Ketchup can be a vegetable if the law says it is, but this law, which may or may not even exist, was likely passed before Alabama law turned fetuses into “people,” and as such is likely not as extreme.
It would be very hard to argue that a law intended to make sure a baby/toddler/child was safely out of the driver seat would apply to a fetus. A fetus cannot be strapped into a car seat or seatbelt, as it can not exist outside of a woman and be a live fetus. If the fetus is viable, then it would become a baby at that point, and the law would apply, but then the argument the woman is making would not.
Pragmatically and literally, i can’t see a way for this safety law to apply to a fetus, so I don’t expect a judge would find the argument novel or noteworthy either.
Ah, now that’s a good argument. I guess I don’t know what I expected when I made that comment, but you stepped up to the plate either way. (I fear this will be taken as condescending, but I assure you I mean it honestly.)
I just had a horrible thought after reading your last paragraph. The safety law regarding the back seat could be applied to fetuses via a law banning pregnant women from driving or sitting in the front seat, taking away even more autonomy.
Forgot to capitalize every other letter…
If it’s a legitimate car crash, a woman’s body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.
-Republicans
Nah, you just can’t put them in a car seat in the front seat. The uterus is specially designed to protect even in the front seat.
Unironically should be legal. I think pregnant women should be able to claim child benefit, too.
According to the article linked by another commenter, it literally is.
She was ticketed, but it was then dismissed in court, because she was right.
Based. Unborn people are still people.
According to the law in texas, at least.
Should be worldwide. Common sense.
Body autonomy requires consciousness.
Therefore anybody younger than about a year old is fair game.
Hardly. Infanticide being illegal doesn’t compromise the body autonomy of anyone, but abortion being illegal, does.
Foetus are pretty conscious. They kick about in the womb among other things. Saw an ultrasound of an abortion and the poor thing was trying to resist ☹️
By your logic, any moving animal is conscious and aware?
I call bullshit.
Actually it’s common sense that they’re not.
Definitely think you should be able to claim fetuses on taxes if you are pregnant pregnant more than half the year.
Yes
Aw but that sucks if you get pregnant in August or September
I had thought about that, but also thought about how that would be spun by conservative pundits.
Clearly, women will get pregnant once a year for the tax benefits of having a child, and then abort it.
Does this apply further, though? If a car is registered for 4 passengers, would a fetus count towards that total?
Are cars registered for passenger numbers?
Maybe it’s not a US-thing? Cars in Norway have a registered numbers of seats specified in the car’s registration, so I just assumed this was a general thing.
I don’t live in the US. Although if it is registered seats, the seat is inside the mother, who is the vehicle for the baby, not the car
What if I’m the one that’s high?
High Occupant Vehicle lane?
You don’t even have to be pregnant. If they want to ban the morning after pill, a contingency that can be used before you even know you’re pregnant, then just getting nutted in is enough.
They have dedicated carpool lanes?
(almost?) all US state highways do, yes
Wild.
Not in Indiana.
Seems to depend on the area. Traveling around the Midwest I basically never see them, but they’re huge in California for example
I wouldn’t say almost all. Less than half in my experience (mostly in TX and WA).
They are only in very congested high traffic areas. Near some large cities.
Live in the midwest and I’ve never seen one.
Minneapolis/St. Paul might have one I’ve just never encountered. They for sure have express lanes, which themselves are a feature I have only ever seen there and no where else in the surrounding region.
What’s a carpool lane? Do we have them in Europe?
It’s a highway lane that you’re only allowed to drive on if you have multiple people driving in the car. So you could avoid traffic, for example. It’s supposed to reduce the number of cars on the road.
There is one in Norway it seems, in Trondheim.
These days it seems like a lot of states are just allowing people to pay a fee to use them, though.
I’ve seen some in the UK.
Yes! I saw one while on vacation in France. It was in Lyon, i think? Look up ‘France diamond lane’
Yes, the US tends to call them HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle, or Human Ordinance Vehicle) lanes, and they’re typically denoted by a large diamond painted along the center of the lane. Usually the far left lane on the highway, so it’s even past the fast lane. It often has limited entry/exit, and is often a double-solid white lane marker, meaning you’re not allowed to enter or exit the lane except at specific points. Sometimes there are even soft barriers, to further deter people from entering/exiting except at the designated points.
It’s a lane that is reserved for moving people rather than cargo; You’re only allowed to travel in if you have more than one person in the car, or are on a motorcycle. The theory is that by restricting specific lanes to carpoolers, you’ll encourage more people to carpool and have fewer cars on the road. And by restricting lane changes, you avoid slowdowns from people entering/exiting the lane. You typically only see them in major metropolitan areas with lots of commuter traffic.
In reality, it’s one of the most commonly broken traffic laws, with commuters often camping in the HOV lane even when they’re by themselves. Or people attempting to use it as a faster version of the fast lane. It is typically only a minor traffic ticket if you get caught. So enforcement is often very lax, and cops will often only pull you over for it if they’re looking for an easy ticket.
This comic is referencing a lady was pulled over in Texas, and cited for being in the HOV lane without another person in the car. She argued in court that she was pregnant, and since Texas considers fetuses to be alive, the court had to dismiss the ticket because she had a second person in the car. The judge ruled in her favor, mostly to avoid creating a major challenge to written laws over a minor traffic ticket.
Thank you for the detailed explanation!
I have never seen an HOV lane that didn’t require vehicles to have at least three people, but maybe she’s pregnant with twins.
Conversely I’ve never seen one that required more than two!
Which is sad because it really says something about how people commute and travel that getting just 2 people into one car is a bar high enough that most vehicles on a given highway can’t meet it
My experience in WA and OR has all been 2+ passengers. The bar is low
AZ is 2 or more
E: or alternative fuel/hybrid/EV, with special plates
MA I-93 in Boston is 2 or more.
