🤦

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.

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I mean pregnant women get priority seats on busses. It would make sense they get priority lanes in traffic too. I dont see a big deal. I’m just glad they have HOV lanes at all.

    Meanwhile in Georgia, they got rid of their HOV and bus lanes and made them into toll lanes for rich people.

        • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          It requires the fast/e/sunshine pass that is radio monitored. I’m sure some people do it in other people’s cars that don’t have it, but it’s a fairly hefty ticket if I remember correctly.

            • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              I did logistics to and from MIA in my late teens and early twenties. And the proletariat route was often (when I say often, I mean 95%) many times faster when it was >$16. I witnessed idiots running over the little white poles that separate the lanes, to join us.

  • Emergency3030@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I don’t know what’s wrong with Texas. It’s like NO ONE can’t do shiut and they just let any dumb ass pass any laws they come up with on their christian fanatism cause I bet non of it is even endorced by God/Jesus or higher beings. It’s like Ted Cruz and Abbot can pass any laws they want regardless of what the constituents wants and really wish. We’re against Muslims and jihads stuff about how they treat women and their clothes they need to wear but this same texas republican fanatics are pushing in the exact same direction with all their supposedly religious laws, which are just plain bullshit. Just think about a law Ted Cruz passed not too long ago about restricting dildos to 6 per person, like why do you even need to do that with what purpose and how does that even help texas at all?

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    How is everyone involved in this not mortally fucking embarrassed over even discussing this stupidity with any seriousness?

  • btmf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ma’am I need you to step out for a field pregnancy test please. STOP RESISTING PEE ON THE STICK

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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 to) 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.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          If you’re a transgender man who can get pregnant, I don’t see why you cannot use the HOV lane 🫃

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

          • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

        • pahlimur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

  • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Brown5500@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      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

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This isn’t just a horrifically-misleading headline, it’s straight-up false.

    The bill originally was written to directly establish personhood of a fetus, but Democrats got an amendment in that keeps the “pregnant mothers get to use the carpool lane” part, without the language that establishes personhood for a fetus. They literally called the Republicans’ bluff on “this bill is about supporting mothers”, by making that specific. This caused one Republican to retract his vote, because the amendment “guts the pro-life purpose of the bill”.