Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A PREGNANT WOMAN in Texas who was fined for driving solo in a carpool lane said her foetus must be counted as a passenger in the wake of strict new abortion laws.
Brandy Bottone, 32 years old and 34 weeks pregnant, has vowed to go to court after she was pulled over in Dallas and handed a penalty by a police officer last month.
She was driving in a lane reserved for vehicles carrying at least two people — a fact she did not dispute.
But Bottone told a police officer that her unborn child was a person in the eyes of the law, as the United States Supreme Court had days earlier reversed decades-standing federal law guaranteeing women access to abortion.
“He said, ‘Is there somebody else in the car?’” Bottone told CNN on Sunday.
“I pointed at my stomach and I was like, ‘Right here,’” she recalled.
When the policeman said that being pregnant “doesn’t count” as the two persons must be “outside the body,” Bottone insisted that “this is a baby.”
The Texas criminal code, like that of many conservative states, recognises a foetus as a “person,” but this does not appear to apply for laws regulating transportation.
Even before Roe v Wade was overturned last month, a new Texas law had banned almost all abortions after six weeks — before many women even know they are pregnant.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Regardless of her argument, heavily pregnant women should be allowed use the car pool lane.
@Padraig O Muirthile: The AK47 on the back seat was ok though.
@Padraig O Muirthile: why?
@Padraig O Muirthile: bathroom needs. Backpack from sitting in traffic. Anxiety of going into labour stuck in traffic. Braxton hicks. Going into labour while stuck in traffic.
@Ciaran: Would you rather they stopped on the road to give birth, if caught off guard?
@JusticeForJoe: A. Police Officer can easily use his discretion in a scenario like this. Most would just wave her on and wish her well .
@Padraig O Muirthile:
Agreed.
Glad this has come up, if they’re going to suddenly take away women’s rights like that, they need to have every law challenged on the definitions.
@Aine O Connor: Especially given the size of her bump!
Police in general tend to be power drunk but it seems especially true of ‘US law enforcement’.
@Ciaran: why would u even ask “why”… get a coffee, grab a seat and have a think about it.. answers are below in next comments if ur stuck..
@Ciaran: women are more likely to have an accident when pregnant so maybe best to allow them use the car pool lane
@Cathal Donnellan: What studies show that phenomenon, or is it an opinion?
Asking for a friend in the emergency services.
@Cathal Donnellan: What Stephen said x2, any studies on that to show us?
@Stephen Deegan: i just did a quick google there and there were lots of results popping up. the figure mentioned is pregnant women are 42% more likely to have an accident than non-pregnant women of the same age.
but this is the one that caught my eye as it states that men of the same age are still more likely to have an accident! so maybe that special lane should be reserved for them :D
but seriously, the big concern in my opinion would be that even minor accidents could have more dire consequences for a pregnant woman, but im not sure what the stats on that are
@Cathal Donnellan: or dont let them drive if they are such a danger to others
@Nirvana Barbarossa: i wouldn’t be advocating banning anyone off the road btw but if you are going to use the stats that way then you’d have to ban young (20s/30s) male drivers too as they are a bigger risk.
@Cathal Donnellan: Interesting statistics. I wonder if it has anything to do with pregnant women rightly having a higher tendency to attend hospital after a collision for a checkup in comparison to a woman who isn’t pregnant. And the other statistic just possibly shows that men are a load of puss1es!
Brilliant! Clever lady.
Hope the US are paying children’s allowance to the foetus.
@Paul Furey: no need, the baby has everything it needs inside the womb. What would the allowance be for usually only Nappies, formula etc.
@Seamus Mac: The allowance would be for whatever the parent decides it’s for, I’d have thought. I’m sure the pro-birth brigade will eventually get around to regulating that too, though.
@Seamus Mac: antenatal care maybe? Costs a small fortune to have a baby in the states.
@Elaine Malone: avg childbirth cost is $13,024 in the USA.
For all the HSE’s faults its far superior by comparison as atleast it won’t cost you a penny.
Brilliant , best of luck to her
This is fantastic. Fair play to her. Hope she takes them to court and wins. Or at least gets her fine quashed because the traffic law does not stipulate that the people must be outside the womb. Just think how many laws will have to be altered because they mention ” person” but not outside the womb. All of a sudden the foetus and tge living will mo longer be equal in the eyes of the law.
She was right , her baby is in the car, alive and kicking. And if she went into labour on the journey the baby could be born in car in an emergency situation. Often happens.
@Aine O Connor: Additionally, Texas criminal code defines a foetus as a person.
So, why is it a person in one case, but not another?
@Mirabelle Stonegate: That’s the six million dollar question.
America outdoing itself again with the crazy…
@Seamus Quaide: whats crazy about it? A lady pregnant with twins was killed by the Omagh bombing. The twins were counted as victims. Do you disagree with that?
@Seamus Quaide: or journalists outdoing themselves to unearth divisive stories to get a few barneys going for clicks.
@Seamus Mac: I think he’s referring to America in general nit the foetus or its mother.
The law of unintended consequences comes to mind
I really hope she fights this all the way. As far as I’m aware the law doesn’t specify that the second person needs to be outside of the body. That would have taken some foresight by the legislators. But even if it does she has a case due to recent Texas law.
I wonder would she pay for two tickets on a plane?
@Donal McCarthy: why would she??? Only one seat would be used.
@Donal McCarthy: You don’t when carrying a baby outside the womb.
So , if she kills someone before her baby is born , and her trial take place 1 year after her baby is born , then she is tried for murder and her baby tried as an accessory to murder ?????
@Michael Costello: no a child that young is below the age of criminal responsibility
@Michael Costello: to be accessory to murder you have culpability as you in some way help facilitate the crime. The baby is under the age of culpability. Which judging by your comment you are too.
@Michael Costello: That has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I’ve ever seen. And this is The Journal!!!!!
@Michael Costello: That has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I’ve ever seen. And this is The Journal!!!!!
@Michael Costello: nope. There have been a few cases where toddlers have picked up a gun and killed their parents and they haven’t been dragged off in baby cuffs. Yet.
@Mc Comascaigh Paul:
The baby was speeding officer!!!
Childrens allowance???? USA is not a socialist country. No childrens allowance, no income support, no rent allowance or household benefits. If you dont have a job with good health insurance, you’re pretty much f@@ked!
Just as well she’s not Black or the cop might have shot her instead of just pulling her over
Passengers must wear a seatbelt!
@Stephen Doyle: not necessarily. A car seat isn’t a seat belt even though its attached to one. What better car seat than its mothers belly.
The purpose of car pool lanes is to reduce traffic by encouraging commuting (plural) workers to travel together. The foetus is not easing traffic flow by leaving a car at home.
The AK47 on the backseat was perfectly fine though…
But the AK47 on the back seat was fine.
But the AK47 in the back seat was fine…
have your say