Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  pat-wilson  •  one month ago  •  188 comments

Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe
Ruback added, “This is a very unique situation in American jurisprudence.”

Lots of consequences to come...


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





A pregnant Texas woman who was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane suggested that   Roe v. Wade   being overturned by the Supreme Court means that her fetus counted as a passenger, and that she should not have been cited.


Brandy Bottone was recently driving down Central Expressway in Dallas when she was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy at an HOV checkpoint to see whether there were at least two occupants per vehicle as mandated. When the sheriff looked around her car last month, she recounted to The Washington Post that he asked, “Is it just you or is someone else riding with you?”



“I said, ‘Oh, there’s two of us,’” Bottone said. “And he said, ‘Where?’”


Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her “baby girl is right here,” Bottone said



one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be “two bodies outside of the body.” While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not.




“One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v. Wade . ‘So I don’t know why you’re not seeing that,’ I said,” she explained to the  Dallas Morning News , the first to report the story.




Bottone was issued a $215 ticket for driving alone in the two-or-more occupant lane — a citation she told local media she’d be challenging in court this month.


“I will be fighting it,” Bottone, 32, of Plano, Tex., said to The Post.


While the Texas Department of Transportation has not indicated whether it is weighing changing the transportation code, Bottone’s case is one that could move the state into “unchartered territory” following the June 24 ruling in   Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , Chad Ruback, a Dallas-based appellate attorney, told The Washington Post.






Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1  seeder  pat wilson    one month ago

Fertilized eggs have rights !!!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  pat wilson @1    one month ago

According to Texas law they do; and at 34 weeks she is well past the "fertilized egg" period (unless you live in some liberal bastion of stupidity like CA or NY).

Technically she is right- according to Texas law there were two people in the car.

Hope the judge has fun reconciling Texas abortion laws with transportation laws.

Maybe she will get lucky and end up with a conservative judge. If not she had better have the cash ready.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    one month ago

Easy way to shoot down her pitifully weak-ass argument:

Charge pregnant women for two airline tickets, (or maybe charge pregnant women as having one carry-on already), amusement parks, buses, movies, etc.

Want to bet that the tune would change and she and others would start screaming bloody mrder?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago

So you're going to have airlines charge two seats for pregnant women, when they don't require an extra seat for children under 2?

That seems pretty misogynistic, Tex.  Kinda like punishing women for being pregnant. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.2    one month ago
So you're going to have airlines charge two seats for pregnant women, when they don't require an extra seat for children under 2?

I ALSO wrote that maybe they could be charged with one carry-on already.

That seems pretty misogynistic, Tex.  Kinda like punishing women for being pregnant.

The POINT was it would be idiotic to do any of those things, just like the woman's argument for driving in the HOV lane because she is pregnant is.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.4  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago
Charge pregnant women for two airline tickets

She'll get two seats then. Could be a good thing for traveling while pregnant.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one month ago
I ALSO wrote that maybe they could be charged with one carry-on already.

Either way, you're proposing punitive fees for pregnancy, which is misogynistic.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.6  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one month ago
They could be charged with one carry-on

No that would be a personal item, no charge.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.8  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one month ago
The POINT was it would be idiotic to do any of those things

And just as idiotic to assign personhood to fetuses or fertilized eggs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.4    one month ago
She'll get two seats then. Could be a good thing for traveling while pregnant.

I have no problem with anyone buying as many seats as they can afford!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.5    one month ago

Perhaps Tex was being sarcastic

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.6    one month ago
No that would be a personal item, no charge.

Can the item fit into the overhead bins or under the seats?

Can it even fit into the little thing they have where if the bag doesn't fit, it must be checked?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.5    one month ago
Either way, you're proposing punitive fees for pregnancy, which is misogynistic.

Utterly false and ridiculous accusation.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.10    one month ago

Perhaps he got caught making a misogynistic comment, and "he was just joking" is a weak defense.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.14  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    one month ago

Not at this point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.10    one month ago
Perhaps he was being sarcastic

THANK YOU for recognizing that despite me not putting the little sarcasm tag on it.

Well done!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    one month ago

It's all there in black and white for everyone to read, Texan.  You propose charging pregnant women extra to travel.  That's punishing women for being pregnant.  It's discriminatory on the basis of sex and biology.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.16    one month ago

It was sarcasm.

Not everyone can recognize it, I suppose, so I will let it slide for now.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    one month ago

Whether it was sarcasm or not, sarcasm doesn't negate misogyny.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.18    one month ago

i am not a misogynist.

silly accusation.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
1.1.20  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.16    one month ago
It's all there in black and white for everyone to read, Texan.  You propose charging pregnant women extra to travel.  That's punishing women for being pregnant.  It's discriminatory on the basis of sex and biology.

For many years, airlines have charged extra for seatbelt extensions/a 2nd seat when a person ... male or female ... cannot reasonably fit into the allotted seat space. There's nothing "discriminatory" about it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.1.20    one month ago

This would not apply to most pregnant women who were not already very overweight before they were pregnant.  A pregnant woman of average size (even for a pregnant woman) would not take up more than one seat.

This applies especially in the early stages of pregnancy, when a woman may well not have gained enough weight to show, but is still, according to law, carrying a person.  Does Texan's proposal apply even to a woman who is 3 months along and still fitting easily into her non-pregnant wardrobe?

So, charging a normal-weight pregnant woman for two seats because she's pregnant (but still fits into one seat) is discriminatory.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    one month ago

Your proposals are misogynistic.

This woman used fetal personhood laws to her advantage.  I pointed out another advantage - tax exemptions.  You object to fetal personhood laws being used to the advantage of the woman carrying the fetus, so you propose weaponizing those laws against her monetarily.  Your proposals seek to punish a woman for being pregnant, and simultaneously to negate any advantage she might receive from being pregnant.

Sounds pretty anti-woman to me.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.23  squiggy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.10    one month ago
The POINT was

Just because he already said so? There's a dead horse to be beaten here, mister!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.22    one month ago

please take the time to read my whole posts. if you did, you would have ALREADY  seen  i said  it would be as foolish as the woman's  defense. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.24    one month ago

AFTER your proposals were called out as misogynistic.

And, psssst - you might want to let Jasper know, so she or he stops defending them (with your upvote, I might add).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.25    one month ago

i dont care what people call me, it is a reflection  on THEM, not me.

its there, read it or not

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    one month ago

I didn't call YOU anything.  Please read my comments in their entirety, and refrain from mischaracterizing them.  I called your proposals misogynistic, and they are.  And you are upvoting your pals who defend them, so your "I was only joking defense" is suspect.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.27    one month ago

your take on my sarcastic  proposals means nothing  to me. 

some people  recognize  sarcasm, some struggle  with it.

Oh, well.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    one month ago

I recognize both sarcasm and misogyny.

I also recognize when one is used to defend or deny the other.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.30  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.27    one month ago
And you are upvoting your pals who defend them, so your "I was only joking defense" is suspect.

Could be conspiracy and collaboration.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.31  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    one month ago

What outcome are you hoping for ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.29    one month ago
I recognize both sarcasm and misogyny.

Okay, whatever you say.

Good on you!

I also recognize when one is used to defend or deny the other.

So you say.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.30    one month ago
Could be conspiracy and collaboration.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.34  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.30    one month ago

To each their own I guess. This is a no win scenario here.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.35  gooseisback  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
And just as idiotic to assign personhood to fetuses or fertilized eggs.

Attorneys sue all the time for the death of the mother and child she is carrying in car accidents. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.35    4 weeks ago

That does not mean the fetus is treated as a person (personhood).   Feticide law is a special case where typically a malicious act has resulted in the death of a fetus.   Typically the fetus would need to be viable.    In these cases the woman typically planned to carry to term and give birth to a child but this possibility was taken from her by the malicious act.

Pat spoke of personhood.   A fetus (or a zygote as she noted) is not considered a person and has no legal rights of a person;  personhood occurs upon birth.

Is a zygote (fertilized egg) a person?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1    one month ago

Using that logic she should get the death penalty for aborting her fetus.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    one month ago

That’s what it will come to. You all for that ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.1    one month ago
That’s what it will come to.

Really?  Not as far as I can see. Let me know when the first state does it.

I'll be here.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
1.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    one month ago

Oh don't worry, I am certain Mississippi is on it. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @1    one month ago
Fertilized eggs have rights !!!

according to thumpers, she's had another passenger since conception...

positive pregnancy test, gas dismissed.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.3    one month ago
gas dismissed

In a good wind.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.3    one month ago

could've sworn I typed case...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.1    one month ago

fuck off

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.3.3    4 weeks ago
fuck off

No, fuck on.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.3.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.4    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2  sandy-2021492    one month ago

The state can't have it both ways.

Wait until couples start claiming tax exemptions for fetuses.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago

Texas doesn't have a state income tax, so the only thing they can do is try it on their federal taxes.

Don't see that as being in the least bit successful.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    one month ago

A fetus is either a person or it's not, Tex, which is the woman's point.  Sorry that's inconvenient for people who want it both ways.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.1    one month ago

I addressed specifically what you wrote. I prefer if you can do the same.

Sorry if it is inconvenient that I don't want deflections.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    one month ago

I addressed the article, Texan.  If you don't like that, tough.  You don't get to direct my comments.  If Pat thinks my comment is deflecting from the topic of her seed, she can say so.  But I imagine she has figured out how it is relevant, as most could, with a few seconds to think through the unintended consequences of these policies.

The article is about fetal personhood.  The fetus is either a person, or it's not.  Sorry if that's inconvenient for people who want it both ways.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.3    one month ago
I addressed the article, Texan. 

Then you probably should have replied to me.

I am sorry if the facts got in the way for you.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    one month ago

Sorry if you can't see this is an unintended consequence of bad legislation.

Also sorry you don't know how conversations work.  You don't get to hand your conversation partner a script to avoid them bringing up points you don't like.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.5    one month ago
Sorry if you can't see this is an unintended consequence of bad legislation

Sorry you don't like the legislation. I suggest you stay out of all states with laws you don't like.

Also sorry you don't know how conversations work.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

― Ronald Reagan

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    one month ago

Is the much-repeated (by you, to the point that it is now spam) Reagan quote in any way relevant to the discussion, or is it the deflection you've been accusing me of?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.7    one month ago
Is the much-repeated (by you, to the point that it is now spam) Reagan quote in any way relevant to the discussion

yes, it is. When someone goes out of their way to say I don't understand how conversations work, it is VERY relevant.

Well, gee, here is a different quote then, sure to satisfy the need for diversity in quotes:

"I am responsible for what I say, not for what you understand"

John Wayne

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    one month ago
When someone goes out of their way to say I don't understand how conversations work, it is VERY relevant.

Perhaps try not proving that you don't know how conversations work by not expecting them to be scripted (by only you, of course).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.9    one month ago
Perhaps try not proving that you don't know how conversations work by not expecting them to be scripted (by only you, of course).

Still sticking with THAT?

LMAO!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    one month ago

Everyone here can read you telling me what I should and should not say.  That's attempting to control both sides of a conversation, isn't how conversations work, Texan.

If you want to control both sides of the conversation, you're best off talking to yourself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.11    one month ago

probably am way better off not conversing  with some.

good point!!!

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
2.1.13  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    one month ago

John Wayne had a number of things to say, that was not one of them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.14  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.5    one month ago
Sorry if you can't see this is an unintended consequence of bad legislation.

seems like yesterday this forum echoed with all the rwnj's whining about activist judges. the religious right has a history of not thinking about the all the potential collateral damage caused by their inspired legislative efforts. this is a conflagration that xtian nationalists won't be able to extinguish.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.5    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
2.2  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago

Right, they're dependents !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago
The state can't have it both ways.

Each state will have it it's own way. From one having no abortion whatsoever to states like Colorado which allow abortion right up to birth.

The people now make the call.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.3.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3    one month ago
The people now make the call.

Not if the state is having it's own way, or both ways.

Bottone is one of "the people".

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.3.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3    one month ago

Not so -

Article IV, Section 2 -

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Think reactions on a state-by-state basis will soon make their way up to SCOTUS.  After all, the Constitution sez everyone is equal - the states say otherwise.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.2    one month ago

You are wrong. Things not covered by the Constitution are left to the states.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.3.1    one month ago

Indeed, this 'people make the choice' nonsense is spin.  The state legislators make laws governing the people.   The people making the choice would mean that the individual pregnant woman would (with her doctor) determine whether or not to abort.   If a state legislature outlaws all abortion, for example, the individual pregnant woman has no choice over her body except by violating the law.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago
The state can't have it both ways.

Of course it can, it's the state.  In California, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus , with malice aforethought.  Except if the fetus is killed by abortion.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.4.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4    one month ago

Is California pushing fetal personhood?

No.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.1    one month ago

In regards to the prosecution of some murder, yes.  Killing broccoli isn't murder, killing a fetus, outside of abortion with malice aforethought is. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.3    one month ago
It's a bit more complicated than that.

Yes, Texan made the same point on complications.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.4.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.4    one month ago

No, he didn't.  The California law does not penalize a woman for being pregnant.  The Texas law does.

The California law penalizes the person who intentionally causes a woman who is carrying a wanted pregnancy to miscarry, often by assaulting the woman herself.  However, it does not hold the fetus to be of more value than the woman - more of a "person", as it were, with rights superseding hers.

From the same link:

Generally, California has charged women with illegal abortion, or a form of child abuse if the fetus survives birth, instead of murder or attempted murder. In this light, it appears the law in action is more selective towards assaulters. It appears to make sense, as convicting women of doing activities that are potentially a risk to their fetus could lead to prosecution of pregnant women who drink or smoke in moderation, or do something akin to riding horses. It can be argued that illegal drug use is more neglectful than other activities, but the concurrent flaw is that women are not condemned for receiving prescription pain killers/narcotics during pregnancy, which can contain the same dangerous compounds and provide the same effects as illegally obtained drugs (Goodwin, 2016, p. 29). When poor pregnant women require pain killers but lack health insurance, and so seek illegal acquisition of the drugs they desire, and then are criminally prosecuted, the enforcement of the law would have a bias towards the poor. Considering demographics of the impoverished, this also means that women of color would be targeted more frequently as well. Fortunately, California is unlike other states in that it has multiple cases in which charges in such a situation were dismissed, and so such a bias is currently avoided, but latently possible.
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.5    one month ago
The California law does not penalize a woman for being pregnant.  The Texas law does

You got that right.

The CA law recognizes that killing a fetus with malice aforethought is the same as killing a person.  But it allows for elective abortion.  It is having it both ways as you accused Texas.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.4.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.6    one month ago

The California law does not regard the fetus as a person.  You were wrong when you said it does.

Note the phrasing "a human being, OR a fetus."

The California law does not seek to penalize women for being pregnant.  It does seek to protect women from having their pregnancies ended without their consent.  It guards women's choice to be pregnant or not, and penalizes those who commit violence against pregnant women with the intention of taking away that choice.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.7    one month ago
The California law does not regard the fetus as a person.  You were wrong when you said it does.

In regards to murder, it does.  Only people and fetuses can be victims of murder in CA.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.4.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.8    one month ago

You just excluded fetuses from the status of "people", yourself.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.9    one month ago

If you say so.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    one month ago
“I will be fighting it,” Bottone, 32, of Plano, Tex., said to The Post.

What an idiot!!!!

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @3    one month ago

The "idiot" will probably win. It is Texas.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @3.1    one month ago
The "idiot" will probably win. It is Texas.

I don't see her winning her case in court.

Most Texans have better sense than to think being pregnant qualifies you to drive in HOV lanes.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JBB  replied to  pat wilson @3.1    one month ago

"You can always tell a Texan. You just can't tell a Texan much" - Will Rogers

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
3.2  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @3    one month ago
What an idiot!!!!

In this case the law is the idiot and Ms.Bottone is the savant ... satire will have a field day. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @3.2    one month ago
Ms.Bottone is the savant ..

Perhaps she is.

An idiot savant.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3    one month ago
What an idiot!!!!

She has a legit point. If you want to say a fetus is a person, then there were two people in that vehicle and she had every right to be in the HOV lane. You can't say a fetus is a person when it is convenient but not a person when it means they state won't get that money. It is one or the other, it is a person all the time or not at all. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.3.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3    one month ago

Welcome to legal mayhem.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.3.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  pat wilson @3.3.1    one month ago

Indeed. I have brought this up when it comes to homicide and whatnot before. If a fetus can be counted as a second and separate  victim in a homicide, and a person can be and has been convicted for that crime x2 when they killed a pregnant woman in any given state, then it seems to me that you have to consider the fetus to be a second passenger in a vehicle as well. Otherwise you are doing exactly what I said, saying it is a person in some situations but not others, which is horseshit.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.3.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.2    one month ago

Don't need it to be in the law, but if the court system has been ruling that a fetus is a second victim of a crime then it seems to me they would have to side with this lady to be even slightly consistent in their application of the law. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.3.5  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.2    one month ago
If you can find somewhere in Texas law it states that a fetus is a person, I would love to see it.

It's just a matter of time and it won't be long. Watch this space.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.4    one month ago

I dare say the courts will see it a tad differently.

Especially a traffic court in this case!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.2    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3    one month ago
If you want to say a fetus is a person, then there were two people in that vehicle and she had every right to be in the HOV lane.

Why do you think I would want to say a fetus is a person?

So, since I don't, I suppose she now doesn't have the right to drive in the HOV lane.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.3.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.8    one month ago

The royal you, not you specifically. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.9    one month ago

Do you honestly believe that HOV lanes are for pregnant women?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.3.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.10    one month ago

Lol FUCK NO. I have stated many times that IMO a fetus is not a person in the slightest, as far as I am concerned an abortion prior to the point of viability is the same as cleaning your toilet. A fetus is a mindless organism that has done little more than perform the most basic biological functions and never been anywhere close to consciousness, much less self-awareness. No difference between an early stage fetus and bacteria to me. 

Now at the point of viability, where given the chance it can achieve consciousness, now I pull my support except for the life of the mother or severe deformities/medical issues. At that point... you missed your chance to get off the pot, you are taking the shit. 

That being said, the law needs to be clear. Whether by legislative decree or judicial precedent. A fetus is either a person or it isn't, especially now that in half the country (or soon to be) the death of that second "person", or not person, can mean jail time intentional or not. 

Fucking define it you pricks, so it is clear, because now it really has far reaching and real world consequences. 

The pro-life douchebags got what they wanted, now deal with the very real and actual consequences. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Every morning I read the Microsoft Bing news roundup before I open NT, and when I got to this story on Bing I burst out laughing.  I'm glad she's going to take it to a trial - I would have loved to be a spectator.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago

Me too.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago
"...one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be “two bodies outside of the body.” While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not."

Does anyone have the exact wording of the relevant section of the Texas Transportation Code?  I'm curious to see exactly how it describes the "second person", because I don't know if a deputy would have quoted it exactly, and how it is worded can make all the difference in the evidence to be considered at the trial. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    one month ago

I can't find where the code specifies the minimum number of occupants.

(3) “High occupancy vehicle” means a bus or other motorized passenger vehicle such as a carpool or vanpool vehicle used for ridesharing purposes and occupied by a specified minimum number of persons.

(4) “ High occupancy vehicle lane ” means one or more lanes of a highway or an entire highway where high occupancy vehicles are given at all times, or at regularly scheduled times, a priority or preference over some or all other vehicles moving in the general stream of all highway traffic.

But this is what the state's Department of Transportation website says:

A vehicle occupied by two or more people or a motorcyclist may use HOV lanes. Vehicles eligible to use HOV lanes include, but are not limited to:
  • passenger cars
  • pickup trucks
  • vans
  • buses
  • motorcycles
  • emergency vehicles responding to a call
Note: Hybrid vehicles with single occupants are not allowed in HOV lanes.
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1    one month ago
"two or more people"

i.e. NOT "two bodies outside of the body".

This is going to be an interesting trial, but the outcome may depend on the politics of the judge, which would be unfortunate.  I really don't have much faith in the political bent of American judges, especially those who are voted in rather than appointed due to their legal competence and impartial integrity like Canadian judges are. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.1    one month ago
the outcome may depend on the politics of the judge, which would be unfortunate.

Agreed.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.3  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.1    one month ago
the politics of the judge, 

If the judge is a thumper she'll win.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6  Thrawn 31    one month ago

I read this earlier today and it made me laugh. Gotta side with her, you can't have it both ways. the fetus is either a person or it isn't, you can't call it a "person" in one situation but not a person in another. Sadly it'll be up to the individual judge which is bullshit and does nothing but kill the credibility of the judicial system. For the law to have any legitimacy it has to be applied equally and consistently. 

A fetus cannot be a person in every scenario EXCEPT when that personhood deprives the state of money, fuck that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6    one month ago

 can find nothing in Texas law stating that a fetus is a person.

If you can, I would sure love to see it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    one month ago

And that is where it gets so fucked up and messy. Like when someone is charged for a double homicide because they killed a pregnant woman, which I am not going to look up but am sure it happens in Texas. The fetus is either a person or it isn't, the situation doesn't matter. If I were a judge I would have to side with her since people have received more severe prison sentences because a fetus was involved and thus their crime was counted as x2. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.1    one month ago

Look, common sense tells me that HOV lanes are for two separate people. 

No amount of talking about what is a fetus or what is a person or who has been prosecuted for crimes against pregnant women and their babies is not going to change that simple fact.

I think she will lose her case.

Can you imagine if she won what would possibly happen?

Women could simply claim they are pregnant and how would the officer be able to determine that?  How many women would complain that it is a violation of their privacy if they were asked to prove when they became pregnant? Can a court force a doctor to turn over private medical records? Would a court be allowed to instruct or command a woman that she must take a pregnancy test if she is unable to produce medical records?

My thought is that I am for abortions--a woman should be able to have all of them she wants and can afford--and HOV lanes are NOT for a woman who is pregnant.

I will give her some props for a very inventive excuse to break the law, though!

Top notch effort!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    one month ago
No amount of talking about what is a fetus or what is a person or who has been prosecuted for crimes against pregnant women and their babies is not going to change that simple fact.

Again, a fetus is a person or it isn't. It cannot be counted as person in certain circumstances but not others. At least not in the eyes of the law, which is what has been happening. Judicial precedent does, or used to, matter.

Can you imagine if she won what would possibly happen?

It would finally force states and the feds to finally define a person? Works for me, clear up all this bullshit that has been going on for awhile. 

Women could simply claim they are pregnant and how would the officer be able to determine that? 

They could issue the citation and it could be cleared up in court. 

How many women would complain that it is a violation of their privacy if they were asked to prove when they became pregnant?

Probably a lot initially until the courts made it crystal clear (which IMO it already is but whatever) that law enforcement can require medical providers to turn over documentation in a criminal investigation. After a couple rulings people would probably still try to fight it, but their doctors would be turning over the requested documentation as soon as they were asked (basically like they already do). 

Can a court force a doctor to turn over private medical records?

Yes. Hell you don't even need a court to get involved, generally as soon as LEOs ask, doctors/medical providers give up the requested info considering under HIPAA laws they are required to provide any and all documentation requested by law enforcement conducting an investigation. 

Would a court be allowed to instruct or command a woman that she must take a pregnancy test if she is unable to produce medical records?

I don't see why not. IMO if they cannot provide any sort of evidence that they are indeed pregnant then the default opinion of the court is that they are not and the fine stands. 

I will give her some props for a very inventive excuse to break the law, though!

Again, the courts need to decide once and for all if a fetus is a person or not. It cannot sometimes be a person and other times not.

Top notch effort!

And yeah, creative as fuck lol. My second favorite excuse so far. My first is a story about a guy who got caught speeding and when they asked why he was going so fast (he was on a rural road late at night) he said "I'm just trying to keep up with traffic", the officer asked "what traffic?" and the guy said "exactly, that's how fast they are going!"

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.3    one month ago
Again, a fetus is a person or it isn't.

Fair point.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.4    one month ago

Shit or get off the pot.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7  charger 383    4 weeks ago

Supreme Court decision opened a lot of  unexpected questions to be asked. Some will conflict with their decision and eventually force them to reevaluate this decision.  This is just the first one

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7    4 weeks ago
Supreme Court decision opened a lot of  unexpected questions to be asked. Some will conflict with their decision and eventually force them to reevaluate this decision.  This is just the first one

The SCOTUS decision really has nothing to do with this case.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    4 weeks ago

It has everything to do with this. Now that Roe is not the law of the land fetal personhood is definitely up for debate and several states are already pushing for it. This is ALL on the SCOTUS. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.1    4 weeks ago
It has everything to do with this.

No, it really doesn't.

This article is about a woman trying to get out of a ticket she deserved because she is pregnant.

What the SCOTUS decision was has nothing to do with her incredibly weak attempt to avoid paying the fines she deserves.

Some folks would like to make it about SCOTUS, but they are just wrong.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

If Texas wanted to count a fetus as a rider in the HOV law, the always could have regardless of any SCOTUS decision.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    4 weeks ago
No, it really doesn't. This article is about a woman trying to get out of a ticket she deserved because she is pregnant.

Yup, citing fetal personhood which is now up for debate and will be recognized in close to 50% of the states. Fetal personhood that is now up for debate because the SCOTUS decided to take away constitutional protection for abortions. 

What the SCOTUS decision was has nothing to do with her incredibly weak attempt to avoid paying the fines she deserves.

Has everything to do with it. Roe is now gone, thanks Dems for nominating fucking Hillary, which means abortion laws of all shapes and sizes will now be the law of the.... land? state...? county...? a fucking absurd patchwork, and in that patchwork will be fetal personhood laws in addition to court rulings that treat a fetus as a second victim. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.3    4 weeks ago
If Texas wanted to count a fetus as a rider in the HOV law, the always could have regardless of any SCOTUS decision.

EXACTLY!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.3    4 weeks ago

They want to count it as a victim in homicides, so they have to count it as a passenger here IMO. It is a person or it isn't.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.4    4 weeks ago
Yup, citing fetal personhood which is now up for debate and will be recognized in close to 50% of the states.

That is a separate debate from a pregnant woman riding in a lane she isn't entitled to be in.

And whether a fetus is considered a person has nothing to do with a traffic law.

I don't understand why people are trying to pretend this is a bigger case than some idiot lady trying to get out of a ticket she deserved.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.4    4 weeks ago
rulings that treat a fetus as a second victim. 

Where have you been, 38 states already  recognize the fetus or as a crime victim, for purposes of homicide or 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.6    4 weeks ago
They want to count it as a victim in homicides, so they have to count it as a passenger here IMO.

CA disagrees, killing a fetus with malice of forethought is murder unless the killing is a consensual abortion.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.7    4 weeks ago
That is a separate debate from a pregnant woman riding in a lane she isn't entitled to be in. And whether a fetus is considered a person has nothing to do with a traffic law.

Yes it does. If a fetus is a person then there are two people in the car and she is fine according to traffic law. If the fetus isn't a person, well then any crime involving a pregnant woman cannot add a fetus as a second victim because it is not a person.

I don't understand why people are trying to pretend this is a bigger case than some idiot lady trying to get out of a ticket she deserved.

Because it is. It is highlighting, early, the problems with the idea of fetal personhood and how in the fuck you reasonably apply it when it comes to actual law enforcement. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

So then define it as a person. Again, shit or get off the pot, this bullshit of a fetus being a person in some cases but not others needs to stop especially since women who miscarry or get an abortion could be subject to jail time. 

Let's get a no shit definition of personhood. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.10    4 weeks ago
Yes it does. If a fetus is a person then there are two people in the car and she is fine according to traffic law.

You would have a valid point if you can just point out where in Texas law it states that a fetus is a person.

I have asked before (all ignored, of course) and no one can do it, thus rendering superficial arguments moot.

Seems like more of you on the left want to pretend this is more than a traffic issue, but it just isn't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.10    4 weeks ago
Because it is. It is highlighting, early, the problems with the idea of fetal personhood and how in the fuck you reasonably apply it when it comes to actual law enforcement. 

I don't see where Texas is doing that. I do see where some folks are pretending that it is.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.11    4 weeks ago
So then define it as a person. Again, shit or get off the pot,

Your argument isn’t with me but with the majority of states.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.12    4 weeks ago
You would have a valid point if you can just point out where in Texas law it states that a fetus is a person.

I am saying lawmakers and judges are about to have a reckoning where they will have to declare one way or the other. I am saying courts have a history of treating the fetus as a person when it is convenient, and not when it isn't. I am saying this lady may finally forces these assholes to pick a side or risk losing any credibility they may have still have. 

I am cheering this lady on BECAUSE she is going to make these cocksuckers actually decide one way or the other and get off the bullshit fence they have been happily sitting on. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.15    4 weeks ago
I am cheering this lady on BECAUSE she is going to make these cocksuckers actually decide one way or the other

Why do use a sexual act as a slur?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.15    4 weeks ago

All the judge has to do is look at the traffic code and simply decide that it meant two separate individuals.

Pretending a fetus is a person to ride in the HOV lane is stupid as hell.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.18  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.16    4 weeks ago

Your medal is in the mail, now do you want to actually address the content of my comment or are you gonna keep trying to pull the woke bitch bullshit on me? 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.19  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.17    4 weeks ago
All the judge has to do is look at the traffic code and simply decide that it meant two separate individuals.

But it doesn't specify that.

Pretending a fetus is a person to ride in the HOV lane is stupid as hell.

But a perfectly legit argument until it is decided one way or the other that a fetus is a person or it isn't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.19    4 weeks ago
But it doesn't specify that.

Doesn't have to. Not every little thing is spelled out in every little law.

But a perfectly legit argument until it is decided one way or the other that a fetus is a person or it isn't.

Sounds incredibly weak and stupid.

Maybe the officer should have demanded an ID from the "passenger"?

LMAO!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.21  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.20    4 weeks ago
Doesn't have to. Not every little thing is spelled out in every little law.

Lol, don't say that to the SCOTUS. Apparently unless it is specifically mentioned, no rights exist outside of the direct text of the constitution. 

Sounds incredibly weak and stupid.

But entirely legit considering legally where we are.

Maybe the officer should have demanded an ID from the "passenger"? LMAO!

I bet the ID would have a been a middle finger from the mom lol. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.21    4 weeks ago
Lol, don't say that to the SCOTUS. Apparently unless it is specifically mentioned, no rights exist outside of the direct text of the constitution

Not one damn thing to do with SCOTUS no matter what mental gymnastics are performed to try to make it so.

But entirely legit considering legally where we are.

Not to someone actually thinking about it.

I bet the ID would have a been a middle finger from the mom lol. 

I would expect that reaction from someone as stupid as she is.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.21    4 weeks ago
Lol, don't say that to the SCOTUS. Apparently unless it is specifically mentioned, no rights exist outside of the direct text of the constitution. 

You obviously haven’t read the Dobbs ruling.  BTW, the 9th Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.24  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.22    4 weeks ago
Not one damn thing to do with SCOTUS no matter what mental gymnastics are performed to try to make it so.

Uh huh, and some people think cucumbers taste better pickled. 

Not to someone actually thinking about it.

The people who are actually thinking about it are the ones wrestling with it and not just writing it off.

I would expect that reaction from someone as stupid as she is.

I have had a member of the city council tell me to fuck myself because I gave him a ticket. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.25  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.23    4 weeks ago

Yawn, in case you hadn't noticed, none of that means much of anything. This is a new SCOTUS baby! Everything is up for grabs. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.24    4 weeks ago
Uh huh, and some people think cucumbers taste better pickled

Ok, tell me specifically what SCOTUS has to do with a traffic ticket in Texas.

The people who are actually thinking about it are the ones wrestling with it and not just writing it off.

Wrestling with this is proof of not understanding this.

I have had a member of the city counsel tell me to fuck myself because I gave him a ticket.

Wonderful. I have seen you say basically the same to folks here for far less a reason.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1.27  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.22    4 weeks ago

Yawn, everything has to do with the SCOTUS, they made themselves the law of the land 200 years ago and we all have gone with it. They decide what we can and cannot do.

And I wouldn't have cited this lady. Honestly I would have laughed at her explanation and told her to go on. 

I have seen you say basically the same to folks here for far less a reason.

Where is the pity party? Date/time? I don't wanna miss it!

Be nice to have a police presence no?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.1.28  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.7    4 weeks ago

because it sets a precedent based on the ruling, it points out that an incomplete answer was given by the Supreme Court.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.1.29  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.20    4 weeks ago
Maybe the officer should have demanded an ID from the "passenger"?

Don't laugh,  it could be argued that the government is neglect for not providing free ID for the fetus.  Because in approximately 17 years and 3 months it would be eligable to vote if life starts at conception like some think.

There are going to be all sorts of issues raised. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.28    4 weeks ago
because it sets a precedent based on the ruling, it points out that an incomplete answer was given by the Supreme Court.

Nothing the Supreme Court did is relevant to this matter.  First, start with basic principles of federalism.  Before Dobbs, the state controlled how it's HOV lanes were enforced, the same as they did after. Nothing has changed. At all.

Anyone who claims otherwise is selling you something. 

The argument doesn't even make sense and seems to be premised on a complete ignorance of what the Court actually ruled in Dobbs.   Under Dobbs, States can permit abortion up until birth. How that somehow turned into the "Court said states must give full rights to unborn humans" is beyond comprehension to me. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.28    4 weeks ago

scotus doesn't  have anything  to do with this traffic ticket case

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.29    4 weeks ago

come on be serious!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.1.33  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.32    4 weeks ago

I am.  You watch, the age issue will be raised.  If fetal personhood is legal that changes age.   And everybody drawing Social Security, for age benefits, will be due about 9 months back pay .  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.1.34  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.31    4 weeks ago

    "scotus doesn't  have anything  to do with this traffic ticket case" 

they opened the door. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.34    4 weeks ago
they opened the door. 

How so? Did they say a fetus is a person?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.33    4 weeks ago
I am.  You watch, the age issue will be raised.  If fetal personhood is legal that changes age.   And everybody drawing Social Security, for age benefits, will be due about 9 months back pay . 

Which federal court has declared a fetus is a person?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @7    4 weeks ago

Indeed. The idea of a fetus having rights or considered a person is absurd. It can be argued that laws prohibiting elective abortion implies a fetus has rights. So, either states will have to declare fetal rights through legislation, which has been attempted and failed before, or they will have to acknowledge a fetus does not have rights, once litigation for situations like the one in the article arise. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2    4 weeks ago
e idea of a fetus having rights or considered a person is absurd

A fetus has always had rights.  Here's Blackstone 300 odd years ago describing the property rights a fetus possesses:

"An infant in [sic] ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in
law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a
surrender of a copyhold estate, made to it. It may have a guardian assigned
to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. "

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2    4 weeks ago

In most states, a mother can sue for the wrongful death of her fetus, like in a traffic accident.  38 states consider the fetus as a victim in murder or manslaughter cases.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.1    4 weeks ago
Lol, do we really want to reach back to 300 year old property rights on this issue? ost here probably would not like the results in they still applied. 
 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.2.2    4 weeks ago

Again, they need to decide if a fetus is a person or not. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.3    4 weeks ago
n [sic] ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed inlaw to be born for many purposes.

did you miss this part?

o we really want to reach back to 300 year old property rights on this issueI

I'm merely pointing out the long history of rights inuring to unborn infants.  Same rights still exist today. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.2.2    4 weeks ago

That's based on harm inflicted against the woman. Not the fetus specifically. The fetus is just collateral damage. But such laws are illogical and simply knee jerk reactions.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.5    4 weeks ago

Apparently Jews would disagree...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.1    4 weeks ago

Specify where in the law books it states a fetus has rights! Especially those like people already born.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.7    4 weeks ago

Apparently Jews would disagree...

The law is what the law is.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.8    4 weeks ago
where in the law books it states a fetus has right

 I just did. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    4 weeks ago

In California you can be charged with murder for the killing of a fetus with malice aforethought. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.12  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.9    4 weeks ago

Religious freedom bro, or do you hate the first amendment? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.8    4 weeks ago

CA -CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199]

  ( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )
187.  (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.14  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.2.13    4 weeks ago

First amendment man. Should be a good SCOTUS fight lol, and for the record I am 100% on your side as far as state authority and religious freedom is concerned. I think.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    4 weeks ago
That's based on harm inflicted against the woman. Not the fetus specifically.

No, the suit can go forward regardless of if the woman was harmed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.12    4 weeks ago
Religious freedom bro, or do you hate the first amendment?

I have no idea what point you think you are making.  Jews can believe what they want. Do you think they can't? 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.17  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.16    4 weeks ago

They are arguing (in Florida I believe) that abortion bans are violating their first amendment rights. They are claiming that the Torah (AKA the OT) not only permits them to conduct abortions but also provides instructions on how to do so, therefore banning abortions is in violation their first amendment rights. 

Much as I hate to say it, because the Abrahamic religions are retarded, they do a have a pretty valid fucking point. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.2.15    4 weeks ago

The woman would likely have to be harmed first to cause harm to the fetus. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.18    4 weeks ago

Then that would be an additional charge.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.2.13    4 weeks ago
CA -CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199]

Only in California State law and that does not actually establish any rights for the unborn. Neither does it establish a legal personhood status with rights for the unborn.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.21  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.10    4 weeks ago

How about something more legally current and valid! Preferably something which does not predate the founding of the country or ratification of the Constitution!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.20    4 weeks ago

The right not to be murdered just like a person.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.17    4 weeks ago
ey are claiming that the Torah (AKA the OT) not only permits them to conduct abortions but also provides instructions on how to do so, therefore banning abortions is in violation their first amendment rights. 

  Unless they are claiming  abortions are mandatory under the Jewish religion I don't know what their argument is.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.24  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.23    4 weeks ago

How in the fuck is this confusing to you? [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.24    4 weeks ago

It's not. The argument is just stupid. 

Just because some sects of a religion believe abortion should be legal, it doesn't give them the right to an abortion.   The only way the law could intrude on a belief in abortion is if they believe mandatory abortions are inseparable part of their belief system.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.21    4 weeks ago
ow about something more legally current and valid!

Do you know how our legal system works? Blackstone is a compilation of the common law, which is binding unless overruled by statute or the Constitution.  The Supreme Court continues to cite Blackstone all the time, including the dissent in Dobbs. 

Feel free to find any state that has rejected the common law principle I cited. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.27  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.25    4 weeks ago
ust because some sects of a religion believe

Ohhhh, so now the state should start deciding what and are not legit religious beliefs? 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.28  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.25    4 weeks ago
The only way the law could intrude on a belief in abortion is if they believe mandatory abortions are inseparable part of their belief system.

I think the Jews can easily make that argument. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.27    4 weeks ago
now the state should start deciding what and are not legit religious beliefs? 

Courts have long determined whether beliefs are sincere or not. Nothing new there. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.28    4 weeks ago
think the Jews can easily make that argument. 

 Jews force women to get abortions? That's news to me.

Hard to see how the religion has survived with mandatory abortions.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.2.31  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.29    4 weeks ago

True, glad we can agree that the first amendment for religion has always been bullshit :) 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.32  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.2.28    4 weeks ago

Maybe there will be a dramatic growth in conversion to Judaism. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.33  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.2.22    4 weeks ago

No such right is there. Such a crime is typically inflicted against the woman first, resulting in the loss of the fetus as collateral damage. No other "rights" or enumerated for the unborn either. In the context of abortion, there is no murder in an abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.2.34  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.26    4 weeks ago

So you're basically arguing the unborn is property or equates to property rights? If so, then that means the pregnant woman is (or should be) free to do whatever she wishes with it, including having it removed. That seems fair to me. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.2.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.33    4 weeks ago
No such right is there

Of course it is, the charge is the same, murder regardless if the victim is a person or a fetus.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.34    4 weeks ago
o you're basically arguing the unborn is property or equates to property rights?

Not at all. That really has nothing to do what I wrote. 

If so, then that means the pregnant woman is (or should be) free to do whatever she wishes with it, including having it removed

That doesn't even follow logically from your misstatement of my position. It's nonsensical. 

To keep this on track. You made the   claim that the idea of a fetus having rights is absurd.  It's demonstrably false. One of the many  ways to disprove that is by showing the law recognizes (and has for thousands of years, going to back to the Roman Republic) that the unborn can possess rights to property. 

 
 

Who is online


Kavika
GregTx
Waykwabu


30 visitors