Previous post
Some of us have been there. Picture this: Let’s say you are five or six months pregnant. You have to drive from Laguna Niguel to Los Angeles. The I-5 is bumper to bumper and not moving. Except the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. It’s wide open. Just at that moment, your unborn child decides to kick the living daylights out of your bladder. You got on I-5 at exit 86/Crown Valley Parkway and you are a mile from exit 106. If you move over into the HOV lane, you can hit a restroom and travel comfortably on to your destination. But, it’s illegal and you can see the California Highway Patrol (CHIPS) in your sideview mirror. Do you take the chance on getting a ticket or sit in pain?
That was me, pregnant with my son and living in Southern California. At that time, there was no HOV lane in Southern Ohio. It was all fair game in an all-out sprint to your own exit. The Ohio driver in me wanted to fill that open lane. It was so wrong, but I understood the by-the-book nature of the CHIPs and didn’t want to have to call my husband to throw my bail.
In Texas, a state representative is preparing to introduce a bill acknowledging that fetuses are people and allowing pregnant women then to drive in the HOV lane. It’s all because of one hero pregnant woman. From Mediaite:
A pregnant woman in Texas went viral this week with her story about fighting a traffic ticket for driving in the carpool lane with a unique argument that her unborn baby counted as a passenger, and now a legislator is vowing to codify her argument into the state’s official transportation code.
Brandy Bottone of Plano, Texas was driving to pick up her son and took the High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane because she was worried about running late, and was pulled over at a Dallas County Sheriff’s checkpoint at the highway exit.
Miss Bottone argued that, since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Dobbs Decision, her unborn child was a person and counted as a passenger. The officer wasn’t so sure. Here is Miss Bottone explaining her position:
The officer/s still gave her the $215 ticket. Dayum, Plano, Texas has some expensive tickets. $215??
A Texas state representative is buying this argument and is going to work to make it law:
Currently, the Texas Penal Code recognizes an unborn child as a person, but the text of the Texas Transportation Code does not. That might soon change, if Texas State Rep. Brian Harrison, a Republican who represents a suburban district south of Dallas, gets his way.
Saturday evening, Harrison tweeted a link to an article about Bottone’s traffic ticket and promised to introduce a bill to “clarify” the state statutes. “Unborn babies are persons (meaning they’re also passengers), and should be treated accordingly under Texas laws,” wrote Harrison.
Unborn babies are persons (meaning they’re also passengers), and should be treated accordingly under Texas laws. Will introduce legislation to clarify this. Brandy, keep fighting that ticket! #txlege https://t.co/ibs7cZl4vd
— Brian Harrison (@brianeharrison) July 10, 2022
I am sure that even Amy Coney Barrett didn’t think of this as a pregnancy aid when she signed with the majority on Dobbs. Bladder stomping is not a legal/Constitutional argument. And, running late to pick up your son is an even worse reason for using the HOV lane. However, I hope that many women use this new law and enjoy the perk.
Fetuses are babies.
Featured Image: JJBERS/Flickr.com/cropped/Creative Commons
[…] post Pregnant HOV Lane Use May Get Legalized appeared first on Victory Girls […]
NTSOG says: “Fetuses are babies.”
And are human beings, not just clusters of cells to be flushed away. We should always make that clear to those who want to discard such [in utero] growing humans so that the significance of their desire to kill is not disguised by clever language and weasel words.
[By the way the introduction is somewhat abbreviated. I suspect it should read “Some of us have been there.”]
Toni Williams says: They love dead babies.
And, thank you. I don’t know why the first two letters got cut off.
T
GWB says: Sorry, but you don’t qualify. And not everyone who has a full bladder that needs emptying now is pregnant.
(You don’t qualify because you’re not sharing a ride with someone who could otherwise be in their own car. I don’t think ferrying kids should qualify, either.)
(BTW, I think HOV lanes should be done away with, altogether.)
Well, the SUPPOSED reason for them is to ease highly congestion by encouraging car pooling.
Just about every time I’ve encountered them, there have been about six vehicles per mile using them. Being generous and assuming four in each car, that’s a couple dozen people being transported. In the “regular” lanes, though, there have been far more than two dozen vehicles in each and every mile of those lanes. The only times I’ve seen more than that, I eventually got to where there had been an accident, either in the HOV lane itself, or where normal traffic was being detoured around the blockage using the HOV lane.
Actually, the reason for them is that the elite among the elite – those that are chauffeured around – don’t have to deal with the annoyance of all the peons just trying to get to work, school, or home.
(I suspect that you’ve never ridden with a woman several months pregnant. I’m an old guy, with reduced bladder room, so I have to “hold it” more often – but at least nobody is KICKING it.)
GWB says: but at least nobody is KICKING it
Your roads are obviously in better shape than the ones here. 😉
Also, here, some of the HOV lanes here use the electronic tolls to become “express” lanes. That’s much more effective at moving vehicles efficiently than asking people to ride with other people who may have errands to run or not be able to detour or whatnot in a 30+ minute commute.
Fernand Samsa says: Lorem ipsum 123 789
7 Comments