Pregnant Texas woman driving in HOV lane gets ticket, argues baby is second passenger

[Dirty_but_Dazzling]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[BS Wildcats]

She must be a Republican.  A Dem couldn’t make that argument since, they don’t consider a baby in the womb a living thing!

[Separation Scientist]

Since the debate could continue endlessly, we have to look to a much higher source for a definition:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[5GallonBucket]

Man made laws

if both woman and unborn baby are murdered it’s a double homicide

so according to that the baby is a second person

her ticket should be dismissed

[baddog]

I agree that the baby is a second person. The HOV lane was created so people would carpool, thus easing traffic a tad by taking cars off the road. Although her unborn child fulfills the minimum requirement of traveling in the HOV lane, it does nothing to ease traffic. Kinda like the guy who drives with a blowup doll for the same reason. Give her a warning and tell her not to do it again. 

[SmashMouth]

While I agree the baby is a human life, the lady knew better. Give her the ticket. 

[LumRaiderFan]

23 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

While I agree the baby is a human life, the lady knew better. Give her the ticket. 

A better idea is just make the HOV lane another regular lane.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

A better idea is just make the HOV lane another regular lane.

I don’t disagree. Give her the ticket, then make it a regular lane. 

[baddog]

Even though she was fudging the law, I believe in warnings. Hey, that’s just me.

[tvc184]

Many or perhaps most of the appeals cases that I have read ask what was the intent of the law. Even for Constitutional rights, the question always comes up, what did the right intend to mean?

The HOV lane is intended to cut down on traffic. Rather than five people taking five different cars to shop, go to an event, coworkers carpooling to work, etc., two could go in one car and three could go in the other. That move has now reduced their potential traffic by more than 50%, from 5 cars to 2. There is no ambiguity in the intent of that law.

By being pregnant, how many cars did the woman reduce the traffic by?

Clearly she should be guilty of the charge. The argument whether it’s another person is ridiculous because even if everyone conceded that, the baby will not be driving for several more years.

Whether you don’t like the HOV lane, whether you think she should get a warning, whether she should get community service, defensive driving, etc., she should not get a pass for pregnancy. A judge is certainly within his authority to dismiss it.