Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe
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.
“I said, ‘Oh, there’s two of us,’” Bottone said. “And he said, ‘Where?’”
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.
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.
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
Who is online
476 visitors
Fertilized eggs have rights !!!
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.
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.
She'll get two seats then. Could be a good thing for traveling while pregnant.
Either way, you're proposing punitive fees for pregnancy, which is misogynistic.
No that would be a personal item, no charge.
And just as idiotic to assign personhood to fetuses or fertilized eggs.
Perhaps Tex was being sarcastic
Perhaps he got caught making a misogynistic comment, and "he was just joking" is a weak defense.
Not at this point.
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.
Whether it was sarcasm or not, sarcasm doesn't negate misogyny.
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.
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.
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.
Just because he already said so? There's a dead horse to be beaten here, mister!
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).
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.
I recognize both sarcasm and misogyny.
I also recognize when one is used to defend or deny the other.
Could be conspiracy and collaboration.
What outcome are you hoping for ?
To each their own I guess. This is a no win scenario here.
Attorneys sue all the time for the death of the mother and child she is carrying in car accidents.
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?
Using that logic she should get the death penalty for aborting her fetus.
That’s what it will come to. You all for that ?
Really? Not as far as I can see. Let me know when the first state does it.
I'll be here.
Oh don't worry, I am certain Mississippi is on it.
according to thumpers, she's had another passenger since conception...
positive pregnancy test, gas dismissed.
In a good wind.
could've sworn I typed case...
fuck off
No, fuck on.
The state can't have it both ways.
Wait until couples start claiming tax exemptions for fetuses.
Right, they're dependents !
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.
Not if the state is having it's own way, or both ways.
Bottone is one of "the people".
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.
You are wrong. Things not covered by the Constitution are left to the states.
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.
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.
Is California pushing fetal personhood?
No.
In regards to the prosecution of some murder, yes. Killing broccoli isn't murder, killing a fetus, outside of abortion with malice aforethought is.
However, because the statute includes ‘or a fetus’ instead of specifically considering a fetus a person, the People v. Brown decision specified that manslaughter of a fetus is not a crime (“People v. Brown,” 1995).
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Yes, Texan made the same point on complications.
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:
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.
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.
In regards to murder, it does. Only people and fetuses can be victims of murder in CA.
You just excluded fetuses from the status of "people", yourself.
If you say so.
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.
Me too.
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.
I can't find where the code specifies the minimum number of occupants.
But this is what the state's Department of Transportation website says:
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.
Agreed.
If the judge is a thumper she'll win.
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.
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
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.
A fetus has always had rights. Here's Blackstone 300 odd years ago describing the property rights a fetus possesses:
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.
Again, they need to decide if a fetus is a person or not.
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.
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.
Apparently Jews would disagree...
Specify where in the law books it states a fetus has rights! Especially those like people already born.
Apparently Jews would disagree...
The law is what the law is.
I just did.
In California you can be charged with murder for the killing of a fetus with malice aforethought.
Religious freedom bro, or do you hate the first amendment?
CA -CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199]
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.
No, the suit can go forward regardless of if the woman was harmed.
I have no idea what point you think you are making. Jews can believe what they want. Do you think they can't?
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.
The woman would likely have to be harmed first to cause harm to the fetus.
Then that would be an additional charge.
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.
How about something more legally current and valid! Preferably something which does not predate the founding of the country or ratification of the Constitution!
The right not to be murdered just like a person.
Unless they are claiming abortions are mandatory under the Jewish religion I don't know what their argument is.
How in the fuck is this confusing to you? [Deleted]
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.
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.
Ohhhh, so now the state should start deciding what and are not legit religious beliefs?
I think the Jews can easily make that argument.
Courts have long determined whether beliefs are sincere or not. Nothing new there.
Jews force women to get abortions? That's news to me.
Hard to see how the religion has survived with mandatory abortions.
True, glad we can agree that the first amendment for religion has always been bullshit
Maybe there will be a dramatic growth in conversion to Judaism.
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.
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.
Of course it is, the charge is the same, murder regardless if the victim is a person or a fetus.
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.