Not The Onion

16192 readers

1640 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

243

Texas Democrats Help Pass Bill Letting Fetuses Count for the HOV Lane (www.jezebel.com)

submitted 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) by sundray@lemmus.org to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

🤦

Republican lawmakers in Texas have once again introduced a bill that tries to shove fetal personhood into carpool lane regulations. This time, however, the bill passed the House after an amendment from Democrats to include all mothers, whether their children are in the car or not. The dangerous proposal that could further entrench the idea of personhood into state law now goes to the Senate for consideration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] radix@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If riding in normal lanes on the highway instead of getting special access is "having no rights as people" we are a long way apart on what "human rights" really means.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Hey quick question, who are you quoting there? Cuz neither of those phrases appeared in my comment. So I was just curious who you were supposed to be quoting. Surely you weren't just making up quotes for me and then making arguments based on those made up quotes right?

[–] deur@feddit.nl -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Awww you're too afraid to actually be consistent with your point in the presence of a percieved mistake from someone else.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

I don't think it's a perceived mistake if someone explicitly misquotes you and then makes arguments based on those explicit misquotes. That's neither perceived nor mistake.

However if there's a portion of my argument you'd like to question me about I'd be happy to Enlighten you.