this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
1240 points (97.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12434 readers
4420 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] QBertReynolds@sh.itjust.works 162 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 197 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Was going to say...

A judge agreed with her, and the June ticket was dismissed.

Still, it is annoying that state and municipal officers can drag you to court in your pregnant condition to prove what the legislature has already decided.

Almost as though the police exist to harass and obstruct the rights of citizens, rather than to serve and protect them.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 72 points 2 months ago

The judge only agreed because if they denied, their stupid abortion laws would have to be revisited.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Technically it wasn't the police's job to make that kind of interpretation but after the precedent had been set they should apply the court's decision

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it wasn’t the police’s job to make that kind of interpretation

This was the second ticket she'd had dismissed. The courts had already made the interpretation. Cops simply weren't abiding by it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Hey, at least they're consistent. Also, I can't think of anybody who wants abortion at 34 weeks.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

God does, they create miscarriages all the time.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 72 points 2 months ago

I like how she admitted she didn't think of the political ramifications and was just working the exploit she'd been given XD

[–] riskable@programming.dev 111 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In Texas, a pregnant black woman or immigrant only counts as 1 and 1/5th person though.

[–] Macallan@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

1 and ⅕? So more than a regular person? Did you mean just ⅕?

[–] ebc@lemmy.ca 82 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He meant 3/5 (the mother) plus 3/5 (the child), so a total of 6/5.

[–] Macallan@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ahh yes ⅗ ... I had it wrong ... Damnit!

[–] riskable@programming.dev 12 points 2 months ago

Don't feel too bad. I had to think about it hard after I wrote the sentence. Then I thought about it some more, triple checked my work using a fractions calculator, then finally hit the submit button 🤣

Fractions are hard. Normal people don't think in fractions (anymore; they probably used to in days of yore).

[–] Raptor_007@lemmy.world 81 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 78 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Aren't there laws against children, babies etc riding in the front seat? Could backfire. /s

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 50 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Children and babies, not fetuses. Should be fine.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If it's a legitimate car crash, a woman's body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

-Republicans

[–] xorollo@leminal.space 10 points 2 months ago

Nah, you just can't put them in a car seat in the front seat. The uterus is specially designed to protect even in the front seat.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 47 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Unironically should be legal. I think pregnant women should be able to claim child benefit, too.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 46 points 2 months ago (23 children)

According to the article linked by another commenter, it literally is.

She was ticketed, but it was then dismissed in court, because she was right.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] thenextguy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What if I'm the one that's high?

High Occupant Vehicle lane?

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 5 points 2 months ago (7 children)

They have dedicated carpool lanes?

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (6 children)

(almost?) all US state highways do, yes

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, the US tends to call them HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle, or Human Ordinance Vehicle) lanes, and they’re typically denoted by a large diamond painted along the center of the lane. Usually the far left lane on the highway, so it’s even past the fast lane. It often has limited entry/exit, and is often a double-solid white lane marker, meaning you’re not allowed to enter or exit the lane except at specific points. Sometimes there are even soft barriers, to further deter people from entering/exiting except at the designated points.

It’s a lane that is reserved for moving people rather than cargo; You’re only allowed to travel in if you have more than one person in the car, or are on a motorcycle. The theory is that by restricting specific lanes to carpoolers, you’ll encourage more people to carpool and have fewer cars on the road. And by restricting lane changes, you avoid slowdowns from people entering/exiting the lane. You typically only see them in major metropolitan areas with lots of commuter traffic.

In reality, it’s one of the most commonly broken traffic laws, with commuters often camping in the HOV lane even when they’re by themselves. Or people attempting to use it as a faster version of the fast lane. It is typically only a minor traffic ticket if you get caught. So enforcement is often very lax, and cops will often only pull you over for it if they’re looking for an easy ticket.

This comic is referencing a lady was pulled over in Texas, and cited for being in the HOV lane without another person in the car. She argued in court that she was pregnant, and since Texas considers fetuses to be alive, the court had to dismiss the ticket because she had a second person in the car. The judge ruled in her favor, mostly to avoid creating a major challenge to written laws over a minor traffic ticket.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›