>

What about letting people shrinking legally at 20 years and 3 months?
Have to give that fetus a seatbelt violation though. >

The fetus to prison pipeline >

A nurse whose job it is to stand by during delivery and immediately slap on tiny handcuffs >

STOP RESISTING! >

Teeny nightsticks are produced >

So, how does this work? Single woman driving in the HOV lane.  Pulled over by cop.  Roadside pregnancy test? >

Given the police desire to search things, I suspect: transvaginal-ultrasound, >

Spread your cheeks we need to check. >

Dave Chappelle?  Why didn’t you just say so? >

This system would require pregnant women to notify the state so they can get special permission to drive. Not only does it advance fetal personhood laws but also creates a database of women who open themselves up to legal liability. >

Next step:  Pregnant women shouldn't drive.
Later:  Women shouldn't drive, as they may not know right away if they are pregnant.
Later:  Women shouldn't be allowed independent movement in public without a male guardian.
Much later:  Handmaid's Tale. >

I see Virginia is trying to model Saudi Arabia >

Well fuck. Virginia's trying to be worse than Saudi Arabia >

Putting the idea of fetus rights and abortion politics aside for a moment, this bill misses the point of the purpose of HOV lanes, which is to encourage carpooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the highway.
A mother and a fetus (again, ignoring for a moment the question of personhood of the fetus) has no choice but to be in a car together, so this provision would do nothing to encourage or advance the cause of carpooling.
If the provisions of the bill serve no relation to the purpose of HOV lanes, then it shouldn't be part of the HOV lane laws. >

I've never understood this. If i was wealthy enough to have a driver, I'd always be carpooling. It really fucks the average workingman in the ass to have a lane dedicated to 'carpooling' 
What does carpooling even really do?  Reduce traffic congestion?  To what end?  Why not just improve infrastructure so mostly-empty cars wouldn't take up the roads? >


What does carpooling even really do?

Reduce commute time, reduce congestion, reduce air pollution, reduce fuel consumption, potentially reduce stress of occupants.
It's not really that hard to think of the benefits it provides. >

Boy, it's almost like we invented something that does all these things before we invented cars. Can't remember what those things are called to save my life. . . . >

Travelling in a car with someone you know at the start/end of the day is gonna be way more pleasant than a bike/bus/whatever you were suggesting with that ambiguous nothingburger comment.
You're just being deliberately obtuse and contrarian, with no counter argument besides "rebuild everything" or "use outdated/inconvenient/uncomfortable alternatives" because the idea that having a comparatively cheap to implement and easily sold to the masses method of reducing all the things I've mentioned offends you for some reason. >

The carpool lane is a feel-good band-aid that does very little to tackle the problems you suggest it helps to solve. >

I dunno about that, gonna have to show some data to back up that claim.
In any case, it might be less effective than your more drastic and expensive "solutions" like restructuring an entire city (or convincing an entire city to ditch their comfortable cars and put up with shitty public transit), but that doesn't mean it's not worth implementing to aid in achieving the same end goals. >

I think the burden is on the folks promoting carpool lanes. 
It's like suggesting there would be less traffic if we expand lanes. Yeah, the assumption seems right, but in reality more people are more likely to use their private cars because they assume there will be less traffic. >


I think the burden is on the folks promoting carpool lanes.

Their fairly widespread existence and the fact that people consistently use them to the point that it's being leveraged by pro-life whackos to further their agenda, as seen by this post we are having a discussion in, seems like pretty good proof of my point.
Now prove me as wrong as you claim I am with something more concrete than just "I think they're stupid". >

It's a thinly veiled attempt to increase laws stipulating that a fetus is an individual. They don't care about the particular law in this case, only that it can be used deceptively in future legislation. (Edit: Oops. Already mentioned just below. Glad it's so transparent.) >

So in theory, child support and health insurance for the fetus should start at conception? Maybe life insurance that would have to payout for a miscarriage? Do they really want to open that can of worms? >

I'm not sure you'll see a lot of objection among the pro-life crowd, particularly the religious portions of it, to having men support pregnant women.  That's generally an arrangement they can get behind.  As far as health or life insurance, that's between you and your insurance company.  I'm sure somebody has written those policies, but they're probably quite expensive. >

Probably get some pushback if the fetus qualifies for food stamps or could be claimed as a dependent for a tax credit. >

Like WIC? Where a pregnant woman is eligible for greater levels of nutrition benefits.  We already do that. >

In this scenario the woman can receive WIC and food stamps. Food stamp amount would increase with an extra dependant. Not to mention WIC only gets you very specific things, like milk and peanut butter. >


Reproductive rights activists say the legislation amounts to a thinly veiled attempt by anti-abortion Republican lawmakers to further curtail abortion rights by advancing so-called personhood laws that seek to protect the rights of the unborn through unconventional avenues.

This is obviously the real goal. It’s not like they actually intend to have state troopers administer pregnancy tests to determine if HOV lane drivers are with child. >

But some trooper will try anyway >

Ladies about to start stuffing their shirts with a pillow >

just carry a positive pregnancy test... >

I feel like pillows are more widely available but sure that works too >


The legislation would require pregnant people to show "proof" of pregnancy, obtainable by having "certified" their pregnancies with the state Transportation Department. 

Lmaooooooo no thanks. >

Ironically this sounds exactly like the type of government/big brother oversite that they don't want. >

If a fetus is a person, are men going to start paying child support at conception? >

is having sex with a pregnant woman going to be child endangerment and a sex crime with a minor? >

Asking the real questions >

It doesn’t make sense that any kids below driving age should count in the HOV lane anyway. The purpose of HOV lanes is to put 2+ drivers who would normally be in separate cars, into one. >


The purpose of HOV lanes is to put 2+ drivers who would normally be in separate cars, into one.

I would disagree that that's the purpose or the goal. Carpooling with multiple children that would otherwise be driven by someone else still means fewer cars on the road.
edit: it's a pedantic point that has no bearing on this nonsense by republicans >

Kind of adds insult to injury whenever there's a miscarriage, though >

Straight to jail according to them. >

Hand to god, I told my wife this would be a thing last year.  I was just a little early on calling it. >

So will pregnant woman have to buy two tickets to attend a concert? We are all aware that babies in the womb enjoy music… >

Don't give Ticketbastard any ideas! >

It's an HOV lane straight to Gilead >

Oh sure but the 12 million “babies” in my nutsack can’t get me in the HOV lane.  Male rights are always being trampled.      /s >

When will a fetus be treated as a trespasser in stand your ground cases? 
"Mr. Fetus, I have asked you repeatedly to leave. I have posted no trespassing signs, and you are hurting my wife. If you do not leave, my wife has the God-given right to defend herself." >

Interestingly technically speaking a fetus is a parasite in the woman’s body. It:

brings no biological benefit to the host
resides inside the host body 
gets its food from and at the expense of the host

So your position isn’t without merit. 
But good luck arguing using science. We don’t do that here. >

Unfortunately parasite is also defined as being a different species from it's host
I do kind of wonder how self defense plan would go (probably no where) but poking loopholes is fun >

Surely nothing could go wrong by registering a pregnancy with the government.  Right? >

does it have to be inside a women? or can i just get a bag full of biohazardous waste and keep it in my trunk >

See, while I've always chuckled at the "I'm pregnant, I can drive in HOV" protest, this is the inevitable downside.  By embracing it, they reinforce the fetal personhood frame and damage the functionality of HOV lanes (resentment from other drivers who see a solo person in HOV without seeing the pregnancy, and more total vehicles in HOV reducing their advantage over other traffic.) >

this law makes sense because otherwise there would be no incentive for the fetus to share a car with the mom.... this will cut down on amount of cars on the road.... /s >

Why is this so hard. You should only be qualified for things like HOV lanes if at least one or more passengers is a currently licensed and insured driver. There is no point in children or anyone else who cannot drive a car qualifying since they have to be driven around anyway and do not have the option of adding another car onto the road. >

Then an abortion would count as willingly and intentionally taking another life. >

Presumably it’s illegal for children under a certain age to ride in a car without a seatbelt or car seat. So an implied extension of this law would mean any pregnant woman who gets into a car is guilty of child endangerment, no? If a fetus is a person then they are by definition under the age where a car seat would be legally required. I’d love to see this logic circle played out on the house floor. >

Soooooo they want pregnant women on a registry. And what happens if she doesn't give birth? Where does that information go? Will she get a knock on the door from the popo if there's a miscarriage?
The government doesn't need to know who's pregnant. 
Nice try Republicans >

They just want a registry of who is pregnant because they are hoping to one day prosecute people who leave the state for abortions >

I mean, the point of an HOV lane is to encourage carpooling so there's less vehicles clogging traffic. A pregnant woman driving by herself isn't really doing anything to combat that. This bill is kinda silly. >

Shhhh…. Few more steps and we can claim fetuses in cold storage as dependents on taxes.  Also, there’s no cold storage, just a million pretend dependents. >

Does this mean that you can take out life insurance on fertilized cells, and then collect when only one of them implant? Based. >

Probably doable, but the premium is likely to be prohibitive. >

Wouldn’t this also require them to sit in back with some sort of booster seat? >

Hey, fetuses gotta get to work too... Those bootstraps don't pull themselves >

What if one has schizophrenia with say 10 personalities? Would you need a Bus drivers license? >

Surely carpool lanes should be for people capable of driving alone, but choosing not to? >

Wouldnt 3-4 pregnant women in a car exide the legal limit of passangers? >

Gotta love when republicans make ridiculous George Carlin jokes into a reality >

Also known as a carpool lane for those of you who live in California (like me) and some other states >

They are also marked as HOV lanes, at least in SoCal. >


Reproductive rights activists say the legislation amounts to a thinly veiled attempt by anti-abortion Republican lawmakers to further curtail abortion rights by advancing so-called personhood laws that seek to protect the rights of the unborn through unconventional avenues.

Sneaky fuckers >

What if it’s in a jar asking for a friend. >

Why stop there can we carpool with a cup of semen? >

Yeah this should be easy peasy to enforce. >

This is just too much governing. Too many laws. >

Can’t say I didn’t wish this was the case when I was pregnant with my first child. Not in the spirit of carpooling, really; but conjoined twins aren’t either and they definitely should be permitted to drive in the carpool lane. >

Prove I’m NOT pregnant, officer. >

Does the fetus have to be alive? >

One could argue that this is about getting a  “fetal personhood” case in front of the Supreme Court to completely outlaw all abortions on a federal level. 


A state makes a law counting a fetus as a person, like this law.


Someone objects and sues them. It could even be one of their own supporters, just something to get it into the court system. 


It’ll filter up to the Supreme Court where the very conservative supermajority recognizes fetuses as people.


If a fetus is a person, with all of the same rights of citizens, then an abortion will legally become murder.  It all adds up to their end goal of no abortion ever for any reason, whatsoever. >

Isn't it the opposite? Pass a law showing the absurdity of treating a fetus like a person, and then when it's inevitably shot down for being stupid, reproductive rights are a little more secure? >

Believe it or not this is a logical next step. With some states saying a fetus is a living person and can't be terminated, you should absolutely be able to drive in the HOV lane with that baby as a 'passenger'.
I mean the government would sooner let a woman die than have her lose her baby so the least they can do is let her drive I'm the HOV lane. >

Fetus ≠ person 
These idiots will not stop. >

So do Republicans actually think they're making the world a better place or do they like playing Evil Mastermind? >

At what point does fetushood begin in the proposed bill? >

Yes, the fetus is a valued human UNTIL it is born in Virginia.  Then, who cares. >

Pretty sure sperm should count then. >

Can you buy a fetus on ebay? >

It’s just another step to “fetal personhood”.  More dangerous than it seems >

Sure let's continue to lower the requirements for HOV lanes and make them even more useless and counter to their original purpose. >

They may be doing this to get “personhood “ for fetuses. >

Wonder what kind of MPG a fetus gets these days... >

So if women are denied medication because they could, at any time, be possibly pregnant, does that mean that all women get to drive in the HOV lanes, because who knows?! >

Speeding while pregnant becomes reckless endangerment of a child. >

that pregnant lady who kept driving in the HOV lanes finally did it >

If you need me, I'll be in the HOV lane with my bucket full of fetuses >

Women, do not register your pregnancy with the government!  It violates HIPPA laws.  Since Roe v Wade, don’t share this information! >

H to the izz-O, V to the izz-A
This genius wants a fetus to be counted down in VA >

How long until somebody puts a jarred fetus specimen in the car and say a fetus counts as a passenger? >

first they get pregnant woman to register. then they check birth records and if they have no record of a birth then they arrest them for having an abortion.
i see what these fuckers are doing. >

What about a Subway footlong after a huge cup of coffee?  Can I count that as a passenger if I'm about to "deliver?" >

Ridiculous >

If Usa want babies, they need to implement this Bill in the whole country, save the bebes. >

You have to register with the state that you're pregnant, and wear the provided red hood and cloak while driving... >

A pregnant person , you mean a WOMAN ? >

So... basically... all nubile women have free access to the HOV lanes by merely filling in some paperwork every few months? >

About time >

Cool I identify as pregnant now and forever when I'm in HOV lanes. >

I'm not traveling alone, officer! I have here with me the father, the son, and the holy ghost! >

So it's okay for two passengers to share one seat? >

Okay. I’m going to put an old sonogram pic of my son (my son is all grown up now) in my glove compartment and ride alone in HOV lane in Virginia. >

The ole it’s a human life when I’m carpooling, gag.
Look, I’m pro choice, this not logically consistent. That being said, meh, I don’t care. >

No women in her right kind would sign up to be on a pregnancy Registry- and the ones who would deserve what they allow that bullshit state will do. They are going to be registered like sex offenders and potentially have their pregnancies used against them. Isn’t this some kind of entrapment? >

I always thought the whole purpose of the HOV was to encourage carpooling so as to reduce the number of cars on the road thereby reducing emissions.  It is not like the fetus would otherwise be driving its own car.   I’ve always thought that allowing a parent with children on board to use it was not in keeping with the spirit of the lane’s existence/purpose.  Allowing a fetus to count as a passenger is beyond ridiculous. >

So every woman in the state will now claim to be pregnant. Hope they track them and accuse them of abortion if there is no birth in 9 months >

Unborn baby >

They should just mobile ultrasounds in All police cruisers >

Commonwealths sure do make things oddly confusing. >

Oh great, another dogshit selfish reason to have child. What a wonderful timeline >


Like Texas' HB 521, Virginia's HB 1894 is unlikely to advance in the state’s politically split Legislature.

All I needed to know. Any legislator can introduce a bill, but it's all bluster without a realistic road to passage. >

At least they're being consistent I guess? >

It’s all about banning abortion in the long run >

What a waste of time. >

Can the fetus be claimed as a dependent? It's tax time ya know.