SoCS — Baby On Board!

Linda G. Hill has given us an interesting challenge for this week’s Stream of Consciousness Saturday prompt. She’s asked us to open the closest printed matter to us and to use the first 2 to 5 words at the top of the page any way we’d like in our post.

I happened to be reading an article last week’s issue of The Week magazine at around the same time that Linda posted this prompt. The first five words of that article were, “A pregnant Texas woman is fighting….”

The story was about a woman named Brandy Bottone. She was driving down the 2 or more person HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lane on The Central Expressway in Dallas on June 29 when she was stopped at a checkpoint to verify there were at least two passengers in the car.

When asked by the sheriff’s deputy where the other rider was, the pregnant Bottone pointed to her stomach. She said that she explained to the officer that Texas law now defines personhood as commencing at the moment of conception. Thus, by Texas law, her fetus now counts as a person in Texas.

The officer didn’t see it that way and issued Bottone a $215 ticket. Bottone said that he brushed her off when she mentioned that her pre-born baby is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. “So I don’t know why you’re not seeing that,” she told the officer. He said that her vehicle needs to have two people outside of her body.

Now she is taking the case to court. Her protest, Bottone said, is not either for or against abortion. If Texas law says a pre-born baby is a person, then the HOV rule should reflect that. Texas can’t have it both ways. “My blood is boiling,” she said.


I’m curious what you who are reading this post think about this. Please let me know in the comments.

25 thoughts on “SoCS — Baby On Board!

  1. Ruth July 23, 2022 / 3:33 am

    Either the law states that an unborn child is a person separate from its mother from conception, or it is not – good for her taking her case to court.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Nope, Not Pam July 23, 2022 / 4:22 am

    She’s right, you can’t have it both ways. Either the foetus is a legal person, or it isn’t

    Liked by 3 people

  3. donmatthewspoetry July 23, 2022 / 4:46 am

    I had to chuckle at the situation but yes she has a valid point.

    The problem is anything is possible in America

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Paula Light July 23, 2022 / 5:23 am

    Agree with her. If a fetus is a person under the law, then it should count as a passenger as well as a dependent on your taxes!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Lou Carreras July 23, 2022 / 5:40 am

    Unexpected consequences are to be expected when your language in ambiguous. For Texas I hope it’s a matter of : sin in haste, repent at leisure.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen July 23, 2022 / 5:29 pm

      Some people think or say something is obvious even though it runs counter to the actual wording used; used in law. How careless and sloppy and arrogant. The mist bizarre thing I’ve seen yet, on wording, was when the head of an anti-abortion organization said a ten year old having an abortion wouldn’t be getting an abortion — that the definition of abortion is changed because she has an exception. It’s like, “Ohhhh… the lady can’t think.” Or she she was playing games with words, on the spot, because she knew it wouldn’t look good (in front of Congress) to say a child, a pre-teen one at that, should give birth.

      https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/ama-chief-criminalizing-the-practice-of-medicine-is-incredibly-dangerous-144320069666

      AMA chief: Criminalizing the practice of medicine is ‘incredibly dangerous’

      Liked by 1 person

  6. willowdot21 July 23, 2022 / 6:13 am

    Too bloody right, I know we must respect the law but some laws make an ass of it.
    If Texas says a featus is a person from the moment it’s conceived then the officer ( male and gun toting I assume) is wrong….it’s all stupid madness …sorry don’t let me start! 💜💜

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango July 23, 2022 / 9:17 am

      I lived in Texas for a few years back in the mid-80s. It wasn’t as far right back then as it is now. But it was still a land unto itself.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Lakshmi Bhat July 23, 2022 / 7:38 am

    She is right. But many a time people like the police officer walk on the narrow path and see neither left nor right.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. sgeoil July 23, 2022 / 8:35 am

    Good for her! I hope she wins her case.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Marleen July 23, 2022 / 11:10 am

    Of course she should win. Besides Texas’ current law, special parking spots for expectant moms is a fairly common thing in a variety of states or areas. Yippee, I’m on her side. And I wish more officers knew how to think logically. Judges, too, for that matter. I pray she gets a good judge.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen July 27, 2022 / 10:31 pm

      I saw a comment under an article on this that pointed out the intention for the extra lane being to cut down on cars. Therefore, the commenter thought, the other person should be somone else who could drive. I decided to check and see whether or not the rules say the other person has to be, for example, at least fifteen. Nope.

      https://www.txdot.gov/driver/managed-lanes/high-occupancy-vehicle-lanes.html

      Who can use the HOV lane?

      A vehicle occupied by two or more people or a motorcyclist may use HOV lanes.

      Vehicles eligible to use HOV lanes include, but are not limited to:

      passenger cars
      pickup trucks
      vans
      buses
      motorcycles
      emergency vehicles responding to a call

      Note: Hybrid vehicles with single occupants are not allowed in HOV lanes.

      Who cannot use the HOV lane?

      Prohibited vehicles include, but are not limited to:
      Trucks with more than two axles
      Trucks having a gross weight capacity of five tons or more
      Vehicles towing trailers

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Carol anne July 25, 2022 / 10:33 am

    Well, wasnt she meant to have two people other than her in the car? Well even if the officer had agreed that her unborn foetus was a person, which is true, she’d have still had to have another passenger in the car with her!

    Like

  11. leigha66 July 27, 2022 / 2:55 pm

    Good for her, I hope she wins… better yet I hope things change and a woman can once again decide what to do with her own body.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.