• Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Aren’t there laws against children, babies etc riding in the front seat? Could backfire.

    • xorollo@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nah, you just can’t put them in a car seat in the front seat. The uterus is specially designed to protect even in the front seat.

          • Sesudesu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Unfortunately, this is a bad argument.

            ‘Baby’ is not a technical term, and people will generally call newborns, infants, and toddlers ‘babies.’ I wouldn’t really call the fetus out of the question as another subcategory. People would not be called strange to say that it was a baby in there at 38 weeks pregnancy. But that’s a fetus.

            A newborn would be ‘full term’ at 38 weeks if it needed out; not even a premie. Yet a newborn is undeniably a ‘baby.’ So why is it not a baby still in uterus?

            I’m not arguing in favor of them, mind you. That argument is too annoying for me to want to touch anymore than I did here. Just, you aren’t exactly right either.

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              The general use isn’t relevant in the context of the law. Ketchup can be a vegetable if the law says it is, but this law, which may or may not even exist, was likely passed before Alabama law turned fetuses into “people,” and as such is likely not as extreme.

              It would be very hard to argue that a law intended to make sure a baby/toddler/child was safely out of the driver seat would apply to a fetus. A fetus cannot be strapped into a car seat or seatbelt, as it can not exist outside of a woman and be a live fetus. If the fetus is viable, then it would become a baby at that point, and the law would apply, but then the argument the woman is making would not.

              Pragmatically and literally, i can’t see a way for this safety law to apply to a fetus, so I don’t expect a judge would find the argument novel or noteworthy either.

              • cokeslutgarbage@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I just had a horrible thought after reading your last paragraph. The safety law regarding the back seat could be applied to fetuses via a law banning pregnant women from driving or sitting in the front seat, taking away even more autonomy.

              • Sesudesu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Ah, now that’s a good argument. I guess I don’t know what I expected when I made that comment, but you stepped up to the plate either way. (I fear this will be taken as condescending, but I assure you I mean it honestly.)

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yes, the US tends to call them HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle, or Human Ordinance Vehicle) lanes, and they’re typically denoted by a large diamond painted along the center of the lane. Usually the far left lane on the highway, so it’s even past the fast lane. It often has limited entry/exit, and is often a double-solid white lane marker, meaning you’re not allowed to enter or exit the lane except at specific points. Sometimes there are even soft barriers, to further deter people from entering/exiting except at the designated points.

      It’s a lane that is reserved for moving people rather than cargo; You’re only allowed to travel in if you have more than one person in the car, or are on a motorcycle. The theory is that by restricting specific lanes to carpoolers, you’ll encourage more people to carpool and have fewer cars on the road. And by restricting lane changes, you avoid slowdowns from people entering/exiting the lane. You typically only see them in major metropolitan areas with lots of commuter traffic.

      In reality, it’s one of the most commonly broken traffic laws, with commuters often camping in the HOV lane even when they’re by themselves. Or people attempting to use it as a faster version of the fast lane. It is typically only a minor traffic ticket if you get caught. So enforcement is often very lax, and cops will often only pull you over for it if they’re looking for an easy ticket.

      This comic is referencing a lady was pulled over in Texas, and cited for being in the HOV lane without another person in the car. She argued in court that she was pregnant, and since Texas considers fetuses to be alive, the court had to dismiss the ticket because she had a second person in the car. The judge ruled in her favor, mostly to avoid creating a major challenge to written laws over a minor traffic ticket.

      • sushibowl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s a highway lane that you’re only allowed to drive on if you have multiple people driving in the car. So you could avoid traffic, for example. It’s supposed to reduce the number of cars on the road.

        There is one in Norway it seems, in Trondheim.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have never seen an HOV lane that didn’t require vehicles to have at least three people, but maybe she’s pregnant with twins.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Which is sad because it really says something about how people commute and travel that getting just 2 people into one car is a bar high enough that most vehicles on a given highway can’t meet it

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Unironically should be legal. I think pregnant women should be able to claim child benefit, too.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Does this apply further, though? If a car is registered for 4 passengers, would a fetus count towards that total?

        • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Maybe it’s not a US-thing? Cars in Norway have a registered numbers of seats specified in the car’s registration, so I just assumed this was a general thing.

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t live in the US. Although if it is registered seats, the seat is inside the mother, who is the vehicle for the baby, not the car

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Definitely think you should be able to claim fetuses on taxes if you are pregnant pregnant more than half the year.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      According to the article linked by another commenter, it literally is.

      She was ticketed, but it was then dismissed in court, because she was right.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Was going to say…

      A judge agreed with her, and the June ticket was dismissed.

      Still, it is annoying that state and municipal officers can drag you to court in your pregnant condition to prove what the legislature has already decided.

      Almost as though the police exist to harass and obstruct the rights of citizens, rather than to serve and protect them.

      • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Hey, at least they’re consistent. Also, I can’t think of anybody who wants abortion at 34 weeks.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Not many people. But under the current laws around abortion, hospital administrators are too afraid of legal liability to remove a dead baby from the mother.

              Case in point

              More than 100 pregnant women in medical distress who sought help from emergency rooms were turned away or negligently treated since 2022, an Associated Press analysis of federal hospital investigations found.

              Two women — one in Florida and one in Texas — were left to miscarry in public restrooms. In Arkansas, a woman went into septic shock and her fetus died after an emergency room sent her home. At least four other women with ectopic pregnancies had trouble getting treatment, including one in California who needed a blood transfusion after she sat for nine hours in an emergency waiting room.

              Hospital staff are being told not to treat pregnant women, entirely, because any form of treatment might be flagged as “aiding in an abortion” by the state.

              • Kadaj21@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Your initial response read to me that there were folks wishing for still borns.

                But yeah the stories are typically horrifying, like the one mother in Texas who had the means to flee out of state to get the healthcare she needed.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Technically it wasn’t the police’s job to make that kind of interpretation but after the precedent had been set they should apply the court’s decision

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          it wasn’t the police’s job to make that kind of interpretation

          This was the second ticket she’d had dismissed. The courts had already made the interpretation. Cops simply weren’t abiding by it.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I like how she admitted she didn’t think of the political ramifications and was just working the exploit she’d been given XD

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You don’t even have to be pregnant. If they want to ban the morning after pill, a contingency that can be used before you even know you’re pregnant, then just getting nutted in is enough.