Well, I guess she has a point -- Pregnant Texas woman stopped for driving solo in HOV told police ...

[Magnus]

The woman had a point. Now, was she driving a manner that would have put the baby's life at risk?

What IS the punishment for driving as to endanger this week?

She was given a ticket for driving in the car-pool lane, not for speeding. There are no reports of her endangering anyone's lives by her driving.

 

[Desperado]

A pregnant Texas woman used the reversal of Roe v Wade to argue she should be allowed to drive in a car-pool lane, since the baby she was carrying “is a life.”

By law, in order to use the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, drivers must have at least one passenger. But in Brandy Bottone’s eyes, she did. In her uterus.

Bottone was randomly stopped by a Dallas County Sheriff Department officer and given a ticket, The Dallas Morning News reported. “I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person.’ He said, ‘Oh, no. It’s got to be two people outside of the body,’” she told the newspaper.

Though Texas penal code recognizes an unborn child as a person, the transportation code doesn’t. Bottone isn’t letting up anytime soon, though—she’s fighting the ticket in court on July 20. “This has my blood boiling,” she said. “How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life. I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.”

Pregnant Woman Uses Roe Reversal to Fight Car-Pool Lane Ticket

“I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person.’”

www.thedailybeast.com

Sorry that won't fly even though the baby is a person he or she is still not taking up a seat in the car

 

[pknopp]

I'm not upset. Just confused about what you're getting at. Maybe it's me.

I'm just wondering why someone (not you) would get upset because someone you wouldn't expect to side with you siding with you. I'd be happy to have them on my side.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By law, in order to use the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, drivers must have at least one passenger. But in Brandy Bottone’s eyes, she did. In her uterus.

A perfect illustration of how idiotic, wrong, and ridiculous the right’s position is concerning the right to privacy.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's a scientific fact it's a life. The Supreme Court would look pretty silly denying a simple scientific fact.

I don't see how you are confused on this issue. The SC did not rule on anything about life or not. They simply ruled that abortion is not protected by the US Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Odd you did not answer the question. I guess you do not think the baby in the womb is another human being.

Good to know, will file that away for future reference.

Yet further proof that conservatives are dishonest, hypocrites, and cowards.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yet further proof that conservatives are dishonest, hypocrites, and cowards.

So Jones, is the baby mentioned in the article a human being?

This will be pure gold

 

[dblack]

I'm just wondering why someone (not you) would get upset because someone you wouldn't expect to side with you siding with you. I'd be happy to have them on my side.

OIC.

I think for most people politics is a team sport. It's all about defending your "side" and beating up on the other "side". The issues are often just an excuse to fight.

 

[pknopp]

OIC.

I think for most people politics is a team sport. It's all about defending your "side" and beating up on the other "side". The issues are often just an excuse to fight.

Yes, I do not understand that. Slamming someone you see as the other side even though they are supporting your position.

I don't understand that.

If you are pro-life for the life of me I can't understand why you wouldn't want the state to make this message. "Yes, it is a second life, be on your way".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WTF??

It’s a manifestation of the neo-fascist authoritarian right.

And further proof that ‘both sides’ are in no manner ‘the same.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seems like a great way to show it's a life. Why do you have a problem with this?

Because it exposes the idiocy of conservatives’ wrongheaded belief that an embryo/fetus is a ‘person’ and the right’s hypocrisy concerning abortion and the right to privacy.

If conservatives want to designate an embryo/fetus as a ‘person’ in an effort to justify ‘banning’ abortion, then an embryo/fetus is likewise a ‘person’ in other matters of the law and public policy.

Again, conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[dblack]

If you are pro-life for the life of me I can't understand why you wouldn't want the state to make this message. "Yes, it is a second life, be on your way".

I think it's because they recognize that, as I said earlier, it would open up a slew of legal problems. If Texas' penal code considers an "unborn child" to be a person, then every law that mentions a person or people also applies to fetuses.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Because it exposes the idiocy of conservatives’ wrongheaded belief that an embryo/fetus is a ‘person’ and the right’s hypocrisy concerning abortion and the right to privacy.

If conservatives want to designate an embryo/fetus as a ‘person’ in an effort to justify ‘banning’ abortion, then an embryo/fetus is likewise a ‘person’ in other matters of the law and public policy.

Again, conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Neither can you pro choice people, Jones.

 

[pknopp]

Because it exposes the idiocy of conservatives’ wrongheaded belief that an embryo/fetus is a ‘person’ and the right’s hypocrisy concerning abortion and the right to privacy.

Factually it is something not really provable either way.

If conservatives want to designate an embryo/fetus as a ‘person’ in an effort to justify ‘banning’ abortion, then an embryo/fetus is likewise a ‘person’ in other matters of the law and public policy.

Again, conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Well yeah, I do not understand the position of many here. I'd be (and I am) all up on this woman's side.

 

[pknopp]

I think it's because they recognize that, as I said earlier, it would open up a slew of legal problems. If Texas' penal code considers an "unborn child" to be a person, then every law that mentions a person or people also applies to fetuses.

I suppose as I sit here I can not think of every instance this might apply, but OK with me.

 

[dblack]

I suppose as I sit here I can not think of every instance this might apply, but OK with me.

Neither can I, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. It will go no further, of course. The Courts of Texas have no interest in making Texas look even more foolish. But there are other situations where the legal personhood of an "unborn child" becomes a serious issue - e.g. manslaughter charges against those who recklessly cause a miscarriage.

 

[pknopp]

Neither can I, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. It will go no further, of course. The Courts of Texas have no interest in making Texas look even more foolish. But there are other situations where the legal personhood of an "unborn child" becomes a serious issue - e.g. manslaughter charges against those who recklessly cause a miscarriage.

That has long been the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Factually it is something not really provable either way.



Well yeah, I do not understand the position of many here. I'd be (and I am) all up on this woman's side.

Conservatives should advocate that a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks should be arrested and jailed for ‘child’ abuse.

 

[SweetSue92]

A pregnant Texas woman used the reversal of Roe v Wade to argue she should be allowed to drive in a car-pool lane, since the baby she was carrying “is a life.”

By law, in order to use the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, drivers must have at least one passenger. But in Brandy Bottone’s eyes, she did. In her uterus.

Bottone was randomly stopped by a Dallas County Sheriff Department officer and given a ticket, The Dallas Morning News reported. “I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person.’ He said, ‘Oh, no. It’s got to be two people outside of the body,’” she told the newspaper.

Though Texas penal code recognizes an unborn child as a person, the transportation code doesn’t. Bottone isn’t letting up anytime soon, though—she’s fighting the ticket in court on July 20. “This has my blood boiling,” she said. “How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life. I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.”

Pregnant Woman Uses Roe Reversal to Fight Car-Pool Lane Ticket

“I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person.’”

www.thedailybeast.com

Okay

Let her use the carpool lane

 

[dblack]

Conservatives should advocate that a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks should be arrested and jailed for ‘child’ abuse.

And my question to the pro lifers is, why not? Can any answer here? Should a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks be charged with child abuse?