LEBANON, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio’s Republican candidate for U.S. Senate questioned why a certain group of women would be concerned about abortion during an event in the state.

NBC4 obtained a video recording from a Warren County town hall on Friday, where GOP Senate hopeful Bernie Moreno accused suburban women of being focused solely on their ability to get an abortion.

“You know, the left has a lot of single issue voters,” Moreno said. “Sadly, by the way, there’s a lot of suburban women, a lot of suburban women that are like, ‘Listen, abortion is it. If I can’t have an abortion in this country whenever I want, I will vote for anybody else.’ … OK. It’s a little crazy by the way, but — especially for women that are like past 50 — I’m thinking to myself, ‘I don’t think that’s an issue for you.'”

  • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    That may be so, but you can’t just get rid of laws because they could be used unjustly. All laws could be used unjustly.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      That may be so, but you can’t just get rid of laws because they could be used unjustly.

      You absolutely can, and should.

      Law is supposed to be a mechanism to provide justice. If the outcome of a law is injustice, it fails fundamentally at what law is supposed to do and should be discarded. That doesn’t mean a just version of the law couldn’t be crafted, but if we, as a society, let unjust laws stand, then just laws will never be crafted. So yes, get rid of unjust laws.

      • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Unjust laws can and should be eliminated, but people using laws unjustly cannot. Speeding is a crime, but it is not perfectly enforced. Cops let family members go more often, good looking people, people they identify with, etc. Speeding is a just law that is not always enforced in a just way. This is always the case.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 minutes ago

          Your example ignores the consequences to those accused and convicted which negates the value of using it as your argument.

          The worst someone will suffer from indiscriminate speed ticket enforcement will be a sub $500 fee.

          The worst someone will suffer from indiscriminate “illegal miscarriage” enforcement is prison, loss of livelihood, with the knock-on effect of death of the accused from trying to avoid being charged with the unjust law.

          There’s a drastic difference between those two examples, and trying to use the same brush to paint them the same is counterproductive, wouldn’t you agree?