🤦

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.

  • davidgro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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.

    • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours 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.

    • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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.