Well, I guess she has a point -- Pregnant Texas woman stopped for driving solo in HOV told police ...

[Harpy Eagle]

You can't convince these bozo leftists of that. They know what the full intent of the law is just like the judge does when she goes to court. But you know how leftists are.

One more time....the intent of the law is irrelevant in a court of law. All that matters are the words of the law.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Look, it's just a point of inconsistency in the law. That's all I am saying.

Which is what this lady is saying, and that inconsistency should get her out of a ticket.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Texas believes the fetus is a separate life why should they even want to fight it?

If we can't differentiate between the two then all abortions should be considered first degree murder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One more time....the intent of the law is irrelevant in a court of law. All that matters are the words of the law.

WTF do you mean the intent of the law is irrelevant? WTF do you think the law was written in the first place? Of course the intent is the main focus. The intent was to influence people to carpool and a fetus is not considered carpooling.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

WTF do you mean the intent of the law is irrelevant? WTF do you think the law was written in the first place? Of course the intent is the main focus. The intent was to influence people to carpool and a fetus is not considered carpooling.

Intent is irrelevant, it is the words that matter. That is why many laws with good intent are thrown out, they were poorly worded. All a judge can rule on are the words of the law

 

[blackhawk]

From the article. (Why don't people read the article?)

Bettone ended up receiving a $215 citation and instructions from the issuing officer suggesting that if she fought it, it would most likely get dropped.

The officer believes the citation would get dropped if she fought it. That brings up the separate point of why an officer would write a citation he believes would get dropped (we know why) but it's not clear that the officers even believed her wrong.

The officer is giving an opinion same as I and everyone who posted on this thread is how it will actually turn out we don't know. It is certainly possible a judge or jury could rule in her favor with that arguement I just don' believe it's very likely to happen.

 

[dblack]

You can't convince these bozo leftists of that. They know what the full intent of the law is just like the judge does when she goes to court. But you know how leftists are.

The intent of changing the penal code was to treat fetuses as people. It was as deliberate ploy by anti-abortion zealots to make abortion illegal by stealth. Just like the campaign to prosecute fetus deaths as additional murders when a pregnant woman is murdered. Well, they got their way in Texas and now we get to see how stupid it is.

But you're right, we all know the intent of the HOV law wasn't to treat fetuses as people. In fact, the vast majority of laws that refer to people aren't meant to apply to fetuses. But in Texas, the law is very clear. Here are the relevant lines from the Texas penal code:

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:
...
(26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
...
(38) "Person" means an individual or a corporation, association, limited liability company, or other entity or organization governed by the Business Organizations Code.

So now, Texas must amend all their laws intended refer to people, but not fetuses, to clarify that matter. That'll be a shitload of laws. At some point, someone might wonder "Why are we changing all these laws, instead of just reverting the definition change. It's pretty clear the authors of these laws didn't consider a fetus to be a person".

 

[dblack]

The officer is giving an opinion same as I and everyone who posted on this thread is how it will actually turn out we don't know. It is certainly possible a judge or jury could rule in her favor with that arguement I just don' believe it's very likely to happen.

The case is going nowhere. The general penal code specifies the fetus are to be consider an "individual" and a "person", but it's not clear that it applies to traffic laws. Regardless, unless she happens to score a series of liberal judges in a non-liberal state, it will get dismissed and or buried.

It's just a protest. She's pointing out how stupid it is to claim that a fetus is, legally, a person. She's right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The intent of changing the penal code was to treat fetuses as people. It was as deliberate ploy by anti-abortion zealots to make abortion illegal by stealth. Just like the campaign to prosecute fetus deaths as additional murders when a pregnant woman is murdered. Well, they got their way in Texas and now we get to see how stupid it is.

But you're right, we all know the intent of the HOV law wasn't to treat fetuses as people. In fact, the vast majority of laws that refer to people aren't meant to apply to fetuses. But in Texas, the law is very clear. Here are the relevant lines from the Texas penal code:



So now, Texas must either amend all their laws intended refer to people, but not fetuses, to clarify that matter. That'll be a shitload of laws. At some point, someone might wonder "Why are we changing all these laws, instead of just reverting the definition change. It's pretty clear the authors of these laws didn't consider a fetus to be a person".

This is how things come back into balance.

when the Supreme Court removes authority from the federal government and reverts back to the states, the states have to grapple with all the nonsense and put things back where they should be.

While they are at it, my beloved Texas needs to knock off all the bullshit alcohol laws. For example, no alcohol can be purchased before noon on Sunday, and all liquor stores must remain closed on Sunday. "Liquor" defined as any substance containing 20% or more alcohol content, must be sold in a designated "liquor store."

Absolute Christian-centric authoritarian bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is how things come back into balance.

when the Supreme Court removes authority from the federal government and reverts back to the states, the states have to grapple with all the nonsense and put things back where they should be.

While they are at it, my beloved Texas needs to knock off all the bullshit alcohol laws. For example, no alcohol can be purchased before noon on Sunday, and all liquor stores must remain closed on Sunday. "Liquor" defined as any substance containing 20% or more alcohol content, must be sold in a designated "liquor store."

Absolute Christian-centric authoritarian bullshit.

We used to have that in my state. I don't know of any place that still does that. It was mandated by city instead of the entire state, so customers who needed alcohol for a party or whatever would simply go to the next city that sold alcohol on Sunday, and they all quit doing it after a while.

 

[candycorn]

Irrelevant to the discussion here, which is whether or not a pregnant broad's presence makes the car she is driving legally "high occupancy".

Well, if there are 2 people in the car...that may qualify for the HOV lane.

So stop being a squeamish ***** and answer the question.

Is the fetus a person?

 

[dblack]

We used to have that in my state. I don't know of any place that still does that. It was mandated by city instead of the entire state, so customers who needed alcohol for a party or whatever would simply go to the next city that sold alcohol on Sunday, and they all quit doing it after a while.

The main thing is, government should be in charge of alcohol consumption. And procreation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The intent of changing the penal code was to treat fetuses as people. It was as deliberate ploy by anti-abortion zealots to make abortion illegal by stealth. Just like the campaign to prosecute fetus deaths as additional murders when a pregnant woman is murdered. Well, they got their way in Texas and now we get to see how stupid it is.

But you're right, we all know the intent of the HOV law wasn't to treat fetuses as people. In fact, the vast majority of laws that refer to people aren't meant to apply to fetuses. But in Texas, the law is very clear. Here are the relevant lines from the Texas penal code:



So now, Texas must amend all their laws intended refer to people, but not fetuses, to clarify that matter. That'll be a shitload of laws. At some point, someone might wonder "Why are we changing all these laws, instead of just reverting the definition change. It's pretty clear the authors of these laws didn't consider a fetus to be a person".

If it becomes a major issue there I'm sure legislatures will change the wording. To be totally honest I'm against any special lanes for special people to start with. Those roads belong to the people that paid for them, not government with their specific agendas.

 

[dblack]

If it becomes a major issue there I'm sure legislatures will change the wording. To be totally honest I'm against any special lanes for special people to start with. Those roads belong to the people that paid for them, not government with their specific agendas.

Um.. ok?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Well, if there are 2 people in the car...that may qualify for the HOV lane.

So stop being a squeamish ***** and answer the question.

Is the fetus a person?

Depends on who that driver voted for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Intent is irrelevant, it is the words that matter. That is why many laws with good intent are thrown out, they were poorly worded. All a judge can rule on are the words of the law

A judge can rule on anything he or she wants. What's stopping them?

 

[dblack]

Depends on who that driver voted for.

Yep. It is, exactly, as stupid as that.

 

[pknopp]

If we can't differentiate between the two then all abortions should be considered first degree murder.

Isn't that what Texas wants?

 

[pknopp]

The officer is giving an opinion same as I and everyone who posted on this thread is how it will actually turn out we don't know. It is certainly possible a judge or jury could rule in her favor with that arguement I just don' believe it's very likely to happen.

An citation should be a little more than an opinion.

 

[blackhawk]

An citation should be a little more than an opinion.

The citation is not the opinion the opinion is the officer telling her he believes the citation would be dropped if she fought it.