🤦
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.
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.
This makes sense, but how about the soccer moms carrying 6 kids. Would rather them make it about seats filled by breathing humans.
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.
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.
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.
If the fetus is allowed to own a gun, it should count.
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?
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.
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?
Awww you’re too afraid to actually be consistent with your point in the presence of a percieved mistake from someone else.
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.