Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#11

Post by anakaine »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #4

Roe v. Wade didn't protect abortions at 34 weeks already. And if the kid's a passenger, it needs to be in a child safety seat.

Sounds like this needs to be tested by the supreme court. An unborn kid can't each be a kid, a passenger, a foetus, inside the mother, and outside the mother at the same time.

Their ruling would probably be that the kids needs to be removed from the womb by the mother for the duration of the journey, whereupon it will be safely secured in a child seat in the second row, then placed back in the womb once the journey has come to an end.

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#12

Post by ALittleLight »

"Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her 'baby girl is right here,' Bottone said one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be 'two bodies outside of the body.' While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not."

I would be extremely surprised if the state's transportation code specifically called out "outside the body". Also I don't think it would make sense if it did. What's the functional difference between an en-wombed child and a recently released one in this situation?

I say they should let her go in the HOV lane.

The Texas Department of Transportation says the HOV lane can be used by "a vehicle occupied by two or more people" and nothing in their list of exclusions precludes pregnant women.

https://www.txdot.gov/driver/managed-lanes/high-occupancy-ve...

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#13

Post by duxup »

curtis-paris wrote: post #7

I have always felt it should be 'Two or more LICENSED persons per vehicle". The idea is to remove cars from the road for the HOV lanes. Kiddie poolers are not removing cars, they are just giving them VIP access. Remove extra drivers by sharing is the intent. Make it so!

> Kiddie poolers are not removing cars

I car pooled with classmates and their parents as a kid.

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#14

Post by duxup »

ALittleLight wrote: post #12

"Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her 'baby girl is right here,' Bottone said one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be 'two bodies outside of the body.' While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not." I would be extremely surprised if the state's transportation code specificall…

> What's the functional difference between in an en-wombed child and a recently released one in this situation?

What is the difference between a 20 and 21 year old?

Just a dividing line that is easy to understand.

I’m ok with that. Laws should be easy to understand even if they include lines that seem arbitrary immediately on one side or the other.

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#15

Post by pjbeam »

Suppose she got slammed on the road by a malicious driver intentionally and died along with the baby. If the malicious driver could be charged with two homicides under TX law (I don't know) then it seems reasonable to conclude two people occupied the vehicle through the lens of Texas law.

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#16

Post by s1artibartfast »

pjbeam wrote: post #15

Suppose she got slammed on the road by a malicious driver intentionally and died along with the baby. If the malicious driver could be charged with two homicides under TX law (I don't know) then it seems reasonable to conclude two people occupied the vehicle through the lens of Texas law.

Killing a viable fetus is murder in california, as is criminal actions which lead to the death of a fetus up to 3 months prior to its death.

I imagine it is similar in Texas

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#18

Post by bagacrap »

duxup wrote: post #13
curtis-paris wrote: post #7

I have always felt it should be 'Two or more LICENSED persons per vehicle". The idea is to remove cars from the road for the HOV lanes. Kiddie poolers are not removing cars, they are just giving them VIP access. Remove extra drivers by sharing is the intent. Make it so!

> Kiddie poolers are not removing cars I car pooled with classmates and their parents as a kid.

count unlicensed riders as half a person. That way a carpool with two kids and one adult is HOV.

Re: Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

#20

Post by ALittleLight »

duxup wrote: post #14
ALittleLight wrote: post #12

"Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her 'baby girl is right here,' Bottone said one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be 'two bodies outside of the body.' While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not." I would be extremely surprised if the state's transportation code specificall…

> What's the functional difference between in an en-wombed child and a recently released one in this situation? What is the difference between a 20 and 21 year old? Just a dividing line that is easy to understand. I’m ok with that. Laws should be easy to understand even if they include lines that seem arbitrary immediately on one side or the other.

Sure, but in this case there is no easy to understand clear line. The law doesn't say anything about having to be a person outside of a body or whatever. There is no clear line and there is no functional difference, therefore the woman isn't breaking the law and should not be ticketed.

Looking further into it Texas Transportation Code Title 6 Chapter 224 subchapter F section 224.151 says:

"(3) 'High occupancy vehicle' means a bus or other motorized passenger vehicle such as a carpool or vanpool vehicle used for ridesharing purposes and occupied by a specified minimum number of persons."

You can download the Texas Transportation Code here: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Download.aspx and if you do that and grep for what "person" might mean anywhere in the transportation code, like so:

    grep -io '"person" means [^.]*.' *
You get...

    tn.394.htm:"Person" means an individual, association, or corporation.
    tn.397.htm:"Person" means an individual, corporation, or association.
    tn.472.htm:"Person" means an individual, firm, association, or corporation and includes an officer, agent, independent contractor, employee, or trustee of that individual or entity.
    tn.52.htm:"Person" means an individual, association, organization, trust, partnership, or corporation.
    tn.541.htm:"Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.
    tn.601.htm:"Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.
    tn.680.htm:"Person" means an individual, partnership, firm, corporation, association, or other private entity.
    tn.730.htm:"Person" means an individual, organization, or entity but does not include this state or an agency of this state.
I don't see any reason to think that the Transportation Code requires that person not contain another in order to qualify for the HOV lane. I think the police officer in this story made that up. I actually think that the law is 100% on this woman's side and her ticket should be dismissed. This is not a case of ambiguity, it is the case of the law clearly and explicitly stating that she is correct.
Post reply on HN