Ripples are coming...
 

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!

…///

Completely disagree. Texas made the law that says there were two people in the car; they can't have it both ways. Poorly-considered actions often have unintended consequences.

And this is ruining your whole day? Wow.

Incorrect!
:ohdear:

This case is the tip of the iceberg with all of the different laws from state to state. Keeps the lawyers busy and these cases are not going to be cases like personal injury lawyers advertise that they only get paid when the injured person gets paid. HUGE can of worms.

This is mostly my point. For 40 or 50 years people have been working for this day, and now that it is here, you might have thought they would have given some thought to the unintentional consequences.

To the person that said there is one person in the car, I completely agree with you. But, you see Texas disagrees with you and me and said in criminal law on the books that there are two.

I predict there is going to be at least a year of chaos to come, with so many unforeseen consequences springing up.

Actually, she said that she did the same thing when she was driving with her first pregnancy, way before the recent RoeWade decision, and that she is pro-life. It appears that she figured it is 2 people in the car, when one is pregnant, all along.

You are correct. Unintended consequences are the result of laws born from stupidity. O⁹

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

Then she should get ticketed for not having the child in an approved car seat?, assuming Texas has that law

Although sympathetic, she is wasting her time and money. The judge will dismiss this case.

Ripples indeed
 

describes your response.

Given the ridiculous laws in Texas and other states about when life begins, the woman made a perfectly reasonable claim. The law of unintended consequences rules!

I suppose she will have no issue being charged for 2 when booking airline flights while pregnant.

Much ado about nothing
 

texas will simply amend the law to say the second passenger must be in a seperate, buckled up seat.

Airlines charge by the seat. I certainly hope (as would the airline) that she only has the need for one seat during the flight.

Airlines require a ticket based on the occupancy of a seat on the plane.

Double Homicide?
 

I think the question here is not R v. W since it is unlikely that any state's "when life begins" statutes can be applied to vehicular statutes. But I think the real question is, if a pregnant woman is killed in a car accident in the state of Texas, is that considered double vehicular homicide as it is in my state? (very blue state) If the vehicular statutes in Texas do, then I suspect it is in her right legally to use the HOV lane. Not saying it is prudent, only potentially legal.

Actually, I think most airlines require anyone over 2 years old to have a ticket and a seat, even if they could sit on someone's lap.

Almost all airlines do not charge "lap" infants. Why would they charge her?

Gotta give her credit for originality, if nothing else.

Then you are agreeing with me.

Two beating hearts = two people.

However, in this case I think the intent is two passenger seats filled (to reduce the number of cars on the road). So, perhaps they should change the HOV laws to be two passengers over 16 years of age (possible drivers).

Agree. Reminds me of the law that required bars to close at 2AM, but didn't say that they couldn't reopen at 2:05AM.

Easy to fix - Eliminate the HOV lanes. Another failed "green New Deal" idea.

The Fetus is in the correct car seat it would not be viable outside the womb.

It’s only just begun. “Miscarriage prosecution” is going to become a big money maker for lawyers. Women will have to prove it was no fault of their own that they actually had a natural miscarriage. Otherwise, they can be charged with manslaughter now, because the Supreme Court has essentially given “people” status to fetuses and people are ALL governed by constitutional rights. This ruling has women’s lives a potential horror show, along with monetary hardships of having to defend themselves and their doctors. Abortion may be viewed by many has horrendous, but many also believe a bigger horrendous act is bringing thousands of children into this world that are not wanted. We have enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and we can’t take care of many of them adequately. Especially minority children. Before abortion was legal in many places, I remember having an orphanage in our town. Are we going to be forced to go back to that? It can be daily mental torture to a child growing up unwanted. I wish that life for no one. Being pro-life does NOT stop at birth.

Disregarding the fact that HOV lanes are effective and existed long before the "green New Deal" was even conceived.

The States will figure it out.

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Yes, they can, and then the next, and the next.

My point was and is the obvious lack of planning, resulting in confusion and legal problems and costs. And all of those problems will predominantly affect poor women.

And here we have right away an example of why we can’t discuss ANYTHING in this country any more.

It seems no one can just disagree and say why, people have to throw in insults, and juvenile statement and how anyone that disagrees is stupid.

And, apparently this poster believes everyone will just go to term, so no more abortions. Except that doesn’t happen, all through out history it never happens. The only difference will be more women dying when getting abortions illegally. And of course rich women, or poor women carrying a rich man’s fetus, will still have no problem getting safe abortions.

If only life were as simplistic as so many think it is.

Yes I have, and I’m not kidding myself the least bit. I fully expect some will pursue alternate means of accommodation where permitted by likeminded people.
No law has been passed by Congress to permit nationwide abortion access. Why do you think that is the case? Multiple times, the Democrats have had the Presidency as well as the majority in both the House and Senate.

Did you mean Texas? Because this post is about Texas.

The TRUTH hurts! She is correct! You can't have it both ways. You can't say the fetus is a living being and then not accepting her point. Good for her!

Two more things, it did not just say there is no right to abortion it says there is no right to anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. For example, interracial marriage, or maybe putting cream in your coffee.

I recall many here arguing that anything not explicitly denied is implicitly allowed. Apparently that applies to abortion, same sex marriage, et Al, abut not to guns.

Because until this year the right to an abortion was established law.

Can we please stop allowing someone else's religion to rule our lives? And that means you, SCOTUS

This is an example of the insanity now rupturing the fabric of our nation.

That is as it should be and as it is stated in the ninth amendment. Regrettably, that amendment has been ignored.

You want to make an exception to the first amendment? Then talk to me about danger of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

You want to make an exception to the second amendment? Then talk to me about the danger of automatic weapons.

You want to make an exception to the ninth amendment and prohibit abortion? No problem, we ignore that one anyway. But the right answer would be to talk to me about when life begins and how forcing a woman to carry a baby doesn't violate the ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments.