this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
364 points (96.2% liked)

Not The Onion

16205 readers
2233 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

🤦

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean pregnant women get priority seats on busses. It would make sense they get priority lanes in traffic too. I dont see a big deal. I'm just glad they have HOV lanes at all.

Meanwhile in Georgia, they got rid of their HOV and bus lanes and made them into toll lanes for rich people.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's how they always go. Just look at how Miami turned out. Fucking $20 to be in stop and go traffic for ten miles.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

What is it if you dont pay?

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 1 points 50 minutes ago

It requires the fast/e/sunshine pass that is radio monitored. I'm sure some people do it in other people's cars that don't have it, but it's a fairly hefty ticket if I remember correctly.

[–] Emergency3030@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't know what's wrong with Texas. It's like NO ONE can't do shiut and they just let any dumb ass pass any laws they come up with on their christian fanatism cause I bet non of it is even endorced by God/Jesus or higher beings. It's like Ted Cruz and Abbot can pass any laws they want regardless of what the constituents wants and really wish. We're against Muslims and jihads stuff about how they treat women and their clothes they need to wear but this same texas republican fanatics are pushing in the exact same direction with all their supposedly religious laws, which are just plain bullshit. Just think about a law Ted Cruz passed not too long ago about restricting dildos to 6 per person, like why do you even need to do that with what purpose and how does that even help texas at all?

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

It's always weird when we actually get good legislation passed because of this.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 3 points 8 hours ago

Im a bit shocked they are ok with the "Creature attached to the womb" driving.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

But they won't let fetuses count toward your tax exemptions.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 8 hours ago
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 15 points 17 hours ago

How is everyone involved in this not mortally fucking embarrassed over even discussing this stupidity with any seriousness?

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 117 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

This isn't just a horrifically-misleading headline, it's straight-up false.

The bill originally was written to directly establish personhood of a fetus, but Democrats got an amendment in that keeps the "pregnant mothers get to use the carpool lane" part, without the language that establishes personhood for a fetus. They literally called the Republicans' bluff on "this bill is about supporting mothers", by making that specific. This caused one Republican to retract his vote, because the amendment "guts the pro-life purpose of the bill".

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Don't you know people who use the Internet can't be bothered to read the article!

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 23 hours ago

Some of us are completely illiterate!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 4 points 17 hours ago

It's still a stupid waste of everyone's time.

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 10 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

How do cops determine if a woman is pregnant or beer bellied though? They make em pee on a stick they carry with the breathalyzer?

[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago

The pregnancy registry of course.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 10 points 17 hours ago

4 seat cars can now advertise as seating 36... 4 octomoms

[–] grue@lemmy.world 44 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (13 children)

This is sexist against fathers and therefore unconstitutional.

Bill text:

Sec. 545.429. USE OF HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE BY CERTAIN OPERATORS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a female operator of a motor vehicle who is pregnant or is a parent or legal guardian of another person is entitled to use any high occupancy vehicle lane in this state regardless of the number of occupants in the motor vehicle.

Texas Constitution:

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.


What this would actually do (once the test case ruled that it would have to apply to fathers too) is destroy HOV lanes entirely by making everybody able to use them, since the state would have the burden of proof to show that the driver has never had children.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 12 points 17 hours ago

destroy HOV lanes entirely by making everybody able to use them

In Texas, God intended for you to use the most gas possible, and sharing a ride is communism.

[–] Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org 7 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Came here to say this too. This just makes HOV pointless.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 6 points 17 hours ago

In my experience , they're pretty much already useless anyway.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

They're not managed at all anyway. This just paves the way towards pulling up the little bumpy things that divide the HOV from the rest of the road.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] radix@lemmy.world 73 points 1 day ago (8 children)

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.

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This makes sense, but how about the soccer moms carrying 6 kids. Would rather them make it about seats filled by breathing humans.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

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.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.snekerpimp.space 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] btmf@lemmy.world 20 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Ma'am I need you to step out for a field pregnancy test please. STOP RESISTING PEE ON THE STICK

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fair game to collect life insurance on miscarriages now right? My wife has one every month or so, and why yes, I am the beneficiary.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wouldn't you need to take out insurance first

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Sure, but if fetuses are people, you should be able to take out a policy at about 6 weeks.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 19 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I want my state, a smaller blue state, to start using this same logic. Namely, I think we should, using donor cells and cloning techniques, arrange to have 100 million frozen embryos sitting in freezers in the state capital. Logically, if embryos are people, then those 100 million embryos should count as citizens for the sake of Congressional representation and federal funding.

[–] Brown5500@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago

This is a very interesting concept. They would have to be born in order to be a (natural born) citizen I think. But, it should still work because the census is required to count residents not citizens

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (5 children)

Why help them establish that fetus=person?

(Edit: Having seen the other comments including the language of the bill, it makes more sense.)

[–] eRac@lemmings.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They didn't. They made mothers able to use HOV lanes without a second occupant, blocking the GOP's attempts to use HOV lanes to normalize fetal personhood.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That’s what I tell my GF; these measures aren’t about taking care of the fetus. They’re about establishing law supporting unborn ‘rights’ vs the mother’s. Requiring child support for carrying mothers? Just another law designed to legitimize unborn/fetal personhood. Sure, it sounds good on paper, but let’s instead work on protecting a woman’s medical privacy rights and rights to abortion. Then if we want to develop additional rights around that supporting HOV lanes, medical treatment, pregnancy leave, and child support? Sure, let’s do it.

HB 2462 passed on Saturday by a vote of 130-2, with all Democrats present voting yes. Notably, Cain voted against it and said in a statement explaining his vote that he did so because Rep. Hinojosa’s amendment “guts the pro-life purpose of the bill.” He wrote, “As originally written, the bill recognized that the unborn child was an additional occupant. The amendment totally disregards this principle.” This should really give the fetal personhood game away: He only cared about defining an “unborn child” as a person.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

Play stupid games, forfeit your country’s democracy.

[–] reiterationstation@lemm.ee 4 points 20 hours ago

Well this is fucking stupid.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Next step: define sperms as fetuses

load more comments
view more: next ›