this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
300 points (96.6% liked)

Not The Onion

16210 readers
1895 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
 

🤦

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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 93 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 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 26 points 16 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 11 points 14 hours ago

Some of us are completely illiterate!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

The pregnancy registry of course.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] radix@lemmy.world 65 points 17 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 37 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

This be clear, what if that soccer mom were carpooling for the team/neighborhood? We’re not just talking about someone with a lot of kids.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.snekerpimp.space 12 points 16 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 4 points 15 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 4 points 16 hours ago

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

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 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 16 hours ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 41 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 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.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 hours ago

destroy HOV lanes entirely by making everybody able to use them

In Texas, God intended for you to use the most gas possible, and sharing a ride is communism.

[–] Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 5 points 9 hours ago

In my experience , they're pretty much already useless anyway.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

They're not managed at all anyway. This just paves the way towards pulling up the little bumpy things that divide the HOV from the rest of the road.

[–] Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe in Texas, but other states I've lived in they are definitely managed and enforced.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

But this article is about Texas...

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 11 points 13 hours 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.

[–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours 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.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 3 points 12 hours ago (2 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 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] LordGimp@lemm.ee 4 points 11 hours ago

Snacks on the go

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Two fold: first, making both parents equal in rights. Second, you can pump milk in advance and give with a bottle. Even if it's formula, allows the father to be involved.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours 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 2 points 11 hours 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 2 points 12 hours 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.

[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 33 points 17 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 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Wouldn't you need to take out insurance first

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 9 points 16 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 5 points 15 hours ago (4 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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 24 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 14 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 15 points 16 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 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 17 hours ago
[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 17 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.

[–] btmf@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 17 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 13 points 9 hours ago

How is everyone involved in this not mortally fucking embarrassed over even discussing this stupidity with any seriousness?

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

But they won't let fetuses count toward your tax exemptions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 hours ago

4 seat cars can now advertise as seating 36... 4 octomoms

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 17 hours ago

How is this dangerous? Sounds pretty based.

[–] reiterationstation@lemm.ee 4 points 12 hours ago

Well this is fucking stupid.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Next step: define sperms as fetuses

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Claim the fetus on the taxes

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›