HOV lane for pregnant women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll just adjust the laws to say if the person can occupy it's own seat. That's the original intent to occupy a seat.

Exactly. This whole thread is stupid.

So adjust the laws to say you need to be able to occupy your own seat to have legal protection as a person.

They will do that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll just adjust the laws to say if the person can occupy it's own seat. That's the original intent to occupy a seat.

Exactly. This whole thread is stupid.

What’s stupid is letting lawmakers make medical decisions. But I guess you think that’s fine. Injected bleach lately?

It's stupid because the woman clearly states she was in a rush that's why she used the lane. She got caught and made up a lame excuse to get out of a fine. Now she's wasting the courts time.

Everyone knows the purpose of HOV is to reduce the congestion on the road, being pregnant does not help with that.

And just because a baby doesn't count towards HOV doesn't make it any less of a person that needs to be protected.

Dems are going crazy, grasping and it shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you have some embryos on dry ice in the passenger seat, does that mean you are ok in the HOV lanes now?

I would LOVE to see someone take on this challenge!

incorrect because you can legally transport them in the trunk, but keep wasting everyone's time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you have some embryos on dry ice in the passenger seat, does that mean you are ok in the HOV lanes now?

I would LOVE to see someone take on this challenge!

incorrect because you can legally transport them in the trunk, but keep wasting everyone's time.

My kids sit in the back legally. What’s the difference?

[Anonymous]

Can I buy a life insurance policy for my embryo?

Pregnancy insurance, that would be something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll just adjust the laws to say if the person can occupy it's own seat. That's the original intent to occupy a seat.

Exactly. This whole thread is stupid.

What’s stupid is letting lawmakers make medical decisions. But I guess you think that’s fine. Injected bleach lately?

It's stupid because the woman clearly states she was in a rush that's why she used the lane. She got caught and made up a lame excuse to get out of a fine. Now she's wasting the courts time.

Everyone knows the purpose of HOV is to reduce the congestion on the road, being pregnant does not help with that.

And just because a baby doesn't count towards HOV doesn't make it any less of a person that needs to be protected.

Dems are going crazy, grasping and it shows.

Was it a waste of the court’s time for Mississippi to pass an abortion law that violated Roe v. Wade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll just adjust the laws to say if the person can occupy it's own seat. That's the original intent to occupy a seat.

Exactly. This whole thread is stupid.

What’s stupid is letting lawmakers make medical decisions. But I guess you think that’s fine. Injected bleach lately?

It's stupid because the woman clearly states she was in a rush that's why she used the lane. She got caught and made up a lame excuse to get out of a fine. Now she's wasting the courts time.

Everyone knows the purpose of HOV is to reduce the congestion on the road, being pregnant does not help with that.

And just because a baby doesn't count towards HOV doesn't make it any less of a person that needs to be protected.

Dems are going crazy, grasping and it shows.

by this argument then passengers in the car including children under 16 who can't drive should also not count as they too do nothing to reduce congestion on the road.

I also think all the pro-choice folks who think her argument is genius realize this is going to backfire. Texas pro-lifers will agree with her, a court will rule in her favor and this ruling will further bolster their anti-abortion/life begins at conception argument.

This is why Roe was reversed in the first place. over time the pro-life movement had small legal wins that most people didn't even notice. All those small wins went toward the arguments to overturn Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll just adjust the laws to say if the person can occupy it's own seat. That's the original intent to occupy a seat.

Exactly. This whole thread is stupid.

What’s stupid is letting lawmakers make medical decisions. But I guess you think that’s fine. Injected bleach lately?

It's stupid because the woman clearly states she was in a rush that's why she used the lane. She got caught and made up a lame excuse to get out of a fine. Now she's wasting the courts time.

Everyone knows the purpose of HOV is to reduce the congestion on the road, being pregnant does not help with that.

And just because a baby doesn't count towards HOV doesn't make it any less of a person that needs to be protected.

Dems are going crazy, grasping and it shows.

by this argument then passengers in the car including children under 16 who can't drive should also not count as they too do nothing to reduce congestion on the road.

I also think all the pro-choice folks who think her argument is genius realize this is going to backfire. Texas pro-lifers will agree with her, a court will rule in her favor and this ruling will further bolster their anti-abortion/life begins at conception argument.

This is why Roe was reversed in the first place. over time the pro-life movement had small legal wins that most people didn't even notice. All those small wins went toward the arguments to overturn Roe.

I agree. Those under 16 shouldn't count. It's a loop hole. States will likely revise their laws to say HOV require 2 or 3 in the car above 16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll just adjust the laws to say if the person can occupy it's own seat. That's the original intent to occupy a seat.

Exactly. This whole thread is stupid.

What’s stupid is letting lawmakers make medical decisions. But I guess you think that’s fine. Injected bleach lately?

It's stupid because the woman clearly states she was in a rush that's why she used the lane. She got caught and made up a lame excuse to get out of a fine. Now she's wasting the courts time.

Everyone knows the purpose of HOV is to reduce the congestion on the road, being pregnant does not help with that.

And just because a baby doesn't count towards HOV doesn't make it any less of a person that needs to be protected.

Dems are going crazy, grasping and it shows.

by this argument then passengers in the car including children under 16 who can't drive should also not count as they too do nothing to reduce congestion on the road.

I also think all the pro-choice folks who think her argument is genius realize this is going to backfire. Texas pro-lifers will agree with her, a court will rule in her favor and this ruling will further bolster their anti-abortion/life begins at conception argument.

This is why Roe was reversed in the first place. over time the pro-life movement had small legal wins that most people didn't even notice. All those small wins went toward the arguments to overturn Roe.

Under 16s can have a nanny or babysitter to drive them to activities. Or an Uber. While the parent drives to work or somewhere else.

There are often people on this website asking how to find people to drive their kids to activities while they’re busy doing something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll just adjust the laws to say if the person can occupy it's own seat. That's the original intent to occupy a seat.

Exactly. This whole thread is stupid.

What’s stupid is letting lawmakers make medical decisions. But I guess you think that’s fine. Injected bleach lately?

It's stupid because the woman clearly states she was in a rush that's why she used the lane. She got caught and made up a lame excuse to get out of a fine. Now she's wasting the courts time.

Everyone knows the purpose of HOV is to reduce the congestion on the road, being pregnant does not help with that.

And just because a baby doesn't count towards HOV doesn't make it any less of a person that needs to be protected.

Dems are going crazy, grasping and it shows.

by this argument then passengers in the car including children under 16 who can't drive should also not count as they too do nothing to reduce congestion on the road.

I also think all the pro-choice folks who think her argument is genius realize this is going to backfire. Texas pro-lifers will agree with her, a court will rule in her favor and this ruling will further bolster their anti-abortion/life begins at conception argument.

This is why Roe was reversed in the first place. over time the pro-life movement had small legal wins that most people didn't even notice. All those small wins went toward the arguments to overturn Roe.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t any woman potentially 2-4 weeks pregnant at any time, so women should always get to ride HOV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t any woman potentially 2-4 weeks pregnant at any time, so women should always get to ride HOV.

yes for 3-5 days of every month women could technically have a fertilized but not implanted embryo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see more women challenge the idioticy of laws like this by demanding fair treatment for fetus including social security numbers, child support, specific health insurance, life insurance, etc. I'd want to be ordering off the child's menu to feed the fetus.

Agree. I thought she was clever and funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t any woman potentially 2-4 weeks pregnant at any time, so women should always get to ride HOV.

And every woman is potentially pregnant with twins. HOV3 lane here I come!

[Anonymous]

Why don't Catholics baptize their zygotes? Can't priests just sprinkle some water on the mother's belly or shoot it up there with some kind of baster? I mean, we don't want any miscarried clumps of cells stuck in purgatory now, do we?