🤦
Republican lawmakers in Texas have once again introduced a bill that tries to shove fetal personhood into carpool lane regulations. This time, however, the bill passed the House after an amendment from Democrats to include all mothers, whether their children are in the car or not. The dangerous proposal that could further entrench the idea of personhood into state law now goes to the Senate for consideration.
This is sexist against fathers and therefore unconstitutional.
Bill text:
Sec. 545.429. USE OF HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE BY CERTAIN OPERATORS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a female operator of a motor vehicle who is pregnant or is a parent or legal guardian of another person is entitled to use any high occupancy vehicle lane in this state regardless of the number of occupants in the motor vehicle.
Texas Constitution:
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.
What this would actually do (once the test case ruled that it would have to apply to fathers too) is destroy HOV lanes entirely by making everybody able to use them, since the state would have the burden of proof to show that the driver has never had children.
destroy HOV lanes entirely by making everybody able to use them
In Texas, God intended for you to use the most gas possible, and sharing a ride is communism.
Wouldn’t maternity leave also be sexist with that logic?
There’s a material difference between the impact of pregnancy on mothers and fathers (though the latter should also get leave, but I understand if someone argues that mothers need more to recover physically).
This has no bearing on which lane one can use.
If you’re a transgender man who can get pregnant, I don’t see why you cannot use the HOV lane 🫃
Well, yeah.
But also maternity leave isn’t even in the law here in the US anyway (maybe some states have it for all I know, but even if so I doubt Texas is among them), so it’s equal-opportunity shittiness and the clause I cited doesn’t really apply.
That’s why on the first world we have paternity leave. I as a father even had breastfeeding breaks, with the intention of giving the same rights to both parents.
In somewhat decent states we have it. Oregon does 12 weeks paternity leave and allows it to be intermittent. I did 2 days off for several months recently for our newest screaming asshole of a baby.
I was with you right up to the breastfeeding breaks, what exactly is the game plan for that break?
Pumped milk can be stored in a bottle and taken with you anywhere you want. I’m told it’s very convenient.
Snacks on the go
Two fold: first, making both parents equal in rights. Second, you can pump milk in advance and give with a bottle. Even if it’s formula, allows the father to be involved.
So it’s just a feeding break?
Came here to say this too. This just makes HOV pointless.
They’re not managed at all anyway. This just paves the way towards pulling up the little bumpy things that divide the HOV from the rest of the road.
Maybe in Texas, but other states I’ve lived in they are definitely managed and enforced.
But this article is about Texas…
In my experience , they’re pretty much already useless anyway.
But they won’t let fetuses count toward your tax exemptions.
Yet…
Ma’am I need you to step out for a field pregnancy test please. STOP RESISTING PEE ON THE STICK
They don’t have to be in the car. So i don’t know how you prove it. You take care of Grandma and file her as a dependent, if you’re female I believe you qualify to drive around in the HOV lane. Take care of Grandma and file her as a dependent as a male, you don’t qualify if I’m reading this bill correctly. Or maybe dependents like that aren’t considered part of guardianship? Not sure. It all sounds dumb.
I think about the incels who vote for this.
IMHO, HOV lanes were originally intended to encourage carpooling and getting cars off the road. Since nobody under 16 could even potentially be (legally) driving on their own, they shouldn’t count as occupants at all.
Two+ adults required.
This makes sense, but how about the soccer moms carrying 6 kids. Would rather them make it about seats filled by breathing humans.
This be clear, what if that soccer mom were carpooling for the team/neighborhood? We’re not just talking about someone with a lot of kids.
They are pay-to-win where I am, can be just you in your 2014 v10 expedition as long as you pay the $5.50 a mile toll.
Correct, even in progressive CA we have that. Granted, it’s like $30 bucks during rush hour but I’ve seen it used by the worst of humanity.
If the fetus is allowed to own a gun, it should count.
You say that like children just won’t go anywhere instead. All your thought here would do would be requiring parents to drive their children in separate cars. So it’s essentially the same thing.
Also don’t we do enough in this country to make children’s lives terrible? Don’t we pile enough injustices on them? Do you really need another way to tell them they don’t count as people? Another way to tell them they have no rights?
If riding in normal lanes on the highway instead of getting special access is “having no rights as people” we are a long way apart on what “human rights” really means.
Hey quick question, who are you quoting there? Cuz neither of those phrases appeared in my comment. So I was just curious who you were supposed to be quoting. Surely you weren’t just making up quotes for me and then making arguments based on those made up quotes right?
Awww you’re too afraid to actually be consistent with your point in the presence of a percieved mistake from someone else.
I don’t think it’s a perceived mistake if someone explicitly misquotes you and then makes arguments based on those explicit misquotes. That’s neither perceived nor mistake.
However if there’s a portion of my argument you’d like to question me about I’d be happy to Enlighten you.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
Play stupid games, forfeit your country’s democracy.
Claim the fetus on the taxes
Texas, so no state income tax
Im a bit shocked they are ok with the “Creature attached to the womb” driving.
Next step: define sperms as fetuses
Fair game to collect life insurance on miscarriages now right? My wife has one every month or so, and why yes, I am the beneficiary.
Wouldn’t you need to take out insurance first
Sure, but if fetuses are people, you should be able to take out a policy at about 6 weeks.
Depends on the company’s regulations. For example, I think it’s harder to take out a life insurance policy if you’re on death’s door
Who writes regulations?
I’d assume the company
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_agency
Companies set policy. That policy has to fit within regulations set by government.
Good point that makes sense!
How is this dangerous? Sounds pretty based.
4 seat cars can now advertise as seating 36… 4 octomoms
What HOV lanes? They’ve turned every HOV into a managed toll lane.
That’s the real story
How is everyone involved in this not mortally fucking embarrassed over even discussing this stupidity with any seriousness?
I want my state, a smaller blue state, to start using this same logic. Namely, I think we should, using donor cells and cloning techniques, arrange to have 100 million frozen embryos sitting in freezers in the state capital. Logically, if embryos are people, then those 100 million embryos should count as citizens for the sake of Congressional representation and federal funding.
This is a very interesting concept. They would have to be born in order to be a (natural born) citizen I think. But, it should still work because the census is required to count residents not citizens
