this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
214 points (96.5% liked)

Not The Onion

16192 readers
1956 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:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...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
214
Texas Democrats Help Pass Bill Letting Fetuses Count for the HOV Lane (www.jezebel.com)
submitted 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) by sundray@lemmus.org to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
46 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.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 60 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

This isn't just a horrifically-misleading headline, it's straight-up false.

The bill originally was written to directly establish personhood of a fetus, but Democrats got an amendment in that keeps the "pregnant mothers get to use the carpool lane" part, without the language that establishes personhood for a fetus. They literally called the Republicans' bluff on "this bill is about supporting mothers", by making that specific. This caused one Republican to retract his vote, because the amendment "guts the pro-life purpose of the bill".

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Don't you know people who use the Internet can't be bothered to read the article!

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 hours ago

Some of us are completely illiterate!

[–] reiterationstation@lemm.ee 1 points 55 minutes ago

I might believe democrats are playing 4d chess if they ever accomplished anything that didn’t get used against them.

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 4 points 1 hour ago

How do cops determine if a woman is pregnant or beer bellied though? They make em pee on a stick they carry with the breathalyzer?

[–] radix@lemmy.world 53 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

IMHO, HOV lanes were originally intended to encourage carpooling and getting cars off the road. Since nobody under 16 could even potentially be (legally) driving on their own, they shouldn't count as occupants at all.

Two+ adults required.

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 29 points 5 hours ago

This makes sense, but how about the soccer moms carrying 6 kids. Would rather them make it about seats filled by breathing humans.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.snekerpimp.space 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

They are pay-to-win where I am, can be just you in your 2014 v10 expedition as long as you pay the $5.50 a mile toll.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

Correct, even in progressive CA we have that. Granted, it's like $30 bucks during rush hour but I've seen it used by the worst of humanity.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 4 hours ago

If the fetus is allowed to own a gun, it should count.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

You say that like children just won't go anywhere instead. All your thought here would do would be requiring parents to drive their children in separate cars. So it's essentially the same thing.

Also don't we do enough in this country to make children's lives terrible? Don't we pile enough injustices on them? Do you really need another way to tell them they don't count as people? Another way to tell them they have no rights?

[–] radix@lemmy.world 2 points 4 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 4 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 4 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 2 points 4 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.

[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 32 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Fair game to collect life insurance on miscarriages now right? My wife has one every month or so, and why yes, I am the beneficiary.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Wouldn't you need to take out insurance first

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but if fetuses are people, you should be able to take out a policy at about 6 weeks.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Depends on the company's regulations. For example, I think it's harder to take out a life insurance policy if you're on death's door

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 hours ago

Good point that makes sense!

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Who writes regulations?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 2 hours ago

I'd assume the company

[–] grue@lemmy.world 30 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

This is sexist against fathers and therefore unconstitutional.

Bill text:

Sec. 545.429. USE OF HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE BY CERTAIN OPERATORS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a female operator of a motor vehicle who is pregnant or is a parent or legal guardian of another person is entitled to use any high occupancy vehicle lane in this state regardless of the number of occupants in the motor vehicle.

Texas Constitution:

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.

What this would actually do (once the test case ruled that it would have to apply to fathers too) is destroy HOV lanes entirely by making everybody able to use them, since the state would have the burden of proof to show that the driver has never had children.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

Wouldn't maternity leave also be sexist with that logic?

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 8 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

That's why on the first world we have paternity leave. I as a father even had breastfeeding breaks, with the intention of giving the same rights to both parents.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 points 50 minutes ago (1 children)

I was with you right up to the breastfeeding breaks, what exactly is the game plan for that break?

[–] gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 22 minutes ago

Pumped milk can be stored in a bottle and taken with you anywhere you want. I'm told it's very convenient.

[–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 1 points 58 minutes ago

In somewhat decent states we have it. Oregon does 12 weeks paternity leave and allows it to be intermittent. I did 2 days off for several months recently for our newest screaming asshole of a baby.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

There's a material difference between the impact of pregnancy on mothers and fathers (though the latter should also get leave, but I understand if someone argues that mothers need more to recover physically).

This has no bearing on which lane one can use.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 26 minutes ago

If you're a transgender man who can get pregnant, I don't see why you cannot use the HOV lane 🫃

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Well, yeah.

But also maternity leave isn't even in the law here in the US anyway (maybe some states have it for all I know, but even if so I doubt Texas is among them), so it's equal-opportunity shittiness and the clause I cited doesn't really apply.

[–] Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org 1 points 17 minutes ago

Came here to say this too. This just makes HOV pointless.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 24 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (4 children)

Why help them establish that fetus=person?

(Edit: Having seen the other comments including the language of the bill, it makes more sense.)

[–] eRac@lemmings.world 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They didn't. They made mothers able to use HOV lanes without a second occupant, blocking the GOP's attempts to use HOV lanes to normalize fetal personhood.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, makes more sense now. Thanks

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 11 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

That’s what I tell my GF; these measures aren’t about taking care of the fetus. They’re about establishing law supporting unborn ‘rights’ vs the mother’s. Requiring child support for carrying mothers? Just another law designed to legitimize unborn/fetal personhood. Sure, it sounds good on paper, but let’s instead work on protecting a woman’s medical privacy rights and rights to abortion. Then if we want to develop additional rights around that supporting HOV lanes, medical treatment, pregnancy leave, and child support? Sure, let’s do it.

[–] sundray@lemmus.org 8 points 6 hours ago

Exactly!

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 hours ago

HB 2462 passed on Saturday by a vote of 130-2, with all Democrats present voting yes. Notably, Cain voted against it and said in a statement explaining his vote that he did so because Rep. Hinojosa’s amendment “guts the pro-life purpose of the bill.” He wrote, “As originally written, the bill recognized that the unborn child was an additional occupant. The amendment totally disregards this principle.” This should really give the fetal personhood game away: He only cared about defining an “unborn child” as a person.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 hours ago

I want my state, a smaller blue state, to start using this same logic. Namely, I think we should, using donor cells and cloning techniques, arrange to have 100 million frozen embryos sitting in freezers in the state capital. Logically, if embryos are people, then those 100 million embryos should count as citizens for the sake of Congressional representation and federal funding.

[–] btmf@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Ma'am I need you to step out for a field pregnancy test please. STOP RESISTING PEE ON THE STICK

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

They don't have to be in the car. So i don't know how you prove it. You take care of Grandma and file her as a dependent, if you're female I believe you qualify to drive around in the HOV lane. Take care of Grandma and file her as a dependent as a male, you don't qualify if I'm reading this bill correctly. Or maybe dependents like that aren't considered part of guardianship? Not sure. It all sounds dumb.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 5 hours ago

How is this dangerous? Sounds pretty based.

[–] reiterationstation@lemm.ee 2 points 56 minutes ago

Well this is fucking stupid.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Claim the fetus on the taxes

[–] Mbourgon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Texas, so no state income tax

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -2 points 5 hours ago

I think about the incels who vote for this.