Texas woman argues unborn baby counts as passenger after fine
 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62124366

A woman in Texas has argued that her unborn baby should count as a passenger after she was fined for driving in a high-occupancy lane.
Brandy Bottone, 32, was given the $275 (£231) ticket on 29 June after she was stopped by police in the US state.
She then argued that, given the overturning of the constitutional right to an abortion by the Supreme Court, her unborn child counted as a person.
Ms Bottone, who is 34 weeks pregnant, plans to contest the fine in court.

The officer, however, reportedly said that the lane required two people "outside the body" and issued her the fine.

This should be interesting

there was never a Constitutional right to an abortion......

it's good to see the British are deeply concerned about a woman getting a traffic ticket somewhere in Texas

“Conservatives” don’t believe in an right to privacy as outlined in Constitutional amendments.
They want the government in your house while claiming to be the party of small government
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if I beat my kids in my house do I have a right to privacy?

What does the Constitution say about the right to privacy?

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.

Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy

Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy?)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.

There is no "right to eat dinner" in the Constitution. A textualist must conclude Americans don't have that right. Congress could've passed a statute, but hasn't.
It could reasonably fall under the right to privacy, but the SCOTUS majority doesn't seem to think that exists anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

keep us abreast of when Vermont eliminates your ability to have meatloaf.

It’s worth noting that Kavanaugh and the majority in Dobbs rejected the constitutional right to privacy that was the basis for Roe v. Wade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

only an idiot would come up with this....good job:btu:

So funny you think think this about abortion.. or the constitution ! using your words only an idiot would come up with this....good job

Conservatives said it’s about life and according to their own created definition of when a life starts and in Texas life starts at conception

And this women is just pointing out that fact … and based on that, there were 2 people in her car .

Conservatives get upset when others Fight stupidity with conservatives own stupidity
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they were only occupying 1 seat....

pretty sure he can still get an abortion and eat meatloaf....

On that we agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would have given her two tickets...one for each driver....

Did you just assume his gender??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

men can get pregnant.....


Senator Hawley: “Professor Bridges … you’ve referred to ‘people with the capacity for pregnancy.’ Would that be women?”

Bridges: “Many women, cis-women have the capacity for pregnancy. Many cis-women do not have the capacity for pregnancy. There are also trans men who capable of pregnancy, as well as non-binary people who are capable of pregnancy.”

Hawley: “So this isn’t really a women’s rights issue…”

Bridges: “We can recognize that this impacts women while all recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those things are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley.”

Hawley: “Your view is … is that the core of this right, then, is about what?”

Bridges: “I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence by not recognizing them.”

Hawley: “Wow, you’re saying I’m opening up people to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks who can have pregnancies?”

Bridges: “I want to note that one out of five transgender persons have attempted suicide.”

Hawley: “Because of my line of questioning? So we can’t talk about it?”

Bridges: “Because denying that trans people exist, and pretending that not to know that they exist…”

Hawley: “I’m denying that trans people exist by asking you if you’re talking about women having pregnancies?”

Bridges: “Do you believe that men can get pregnant?”

Hawley: “No, I don’t think men can get pregnant.”

Bridges: “So you are denying that trans people exist.”

People forget or intentionally overlook that intersex people exist too.
These are the people writing our laws. They need to use the correct specific language, because if they don't, the law has weird situations that it doesn't specify.

Objectively, he is incorrect. She said people capable of being pregnant, which is inclusive of all people capable of being pregnant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

also...extrasex

it’s impossible to forget about something that’s shoved in your face 24 hours a day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just where’s your face been?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sens. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., introduced legislation this week that would allow mothers to collect child support benefits, beginning at the point of conception.

The bill would amend the Social Security Act "to ensure that child support for unborn children is collected and distributed under the child support enforcement program."

Guess these 2 agree with her
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device