The Occasional Observer

Despite being labled the "true conservative" GOP Presidential contender in 2008, Sen. Allen is not the anti-Roe candidate many seem to assume he is. In a recent post by SlimJim on RedState, he points to several oddities with Allen's "pro-life" credentials. Here were some of the more interesting points:

1) Roanoke.com's Ed Lynch points out that as recently as his last election, Allen refused to endorse the restriction of first term abortions:

During his run for the Senate in 2000, I twice heard Allen attempt to explain his stand on this issue. Neither attempt was very successful. Allen said that he would not restrict abortion during the first trimester, since at that early point in the pregnancy, it is not certain that there is another person involved.

2) Allen's official responses to a Vote Smart questionnaire during his 2000 Senate run. He chooses "abortion should be outlawed when the fetus is viable" instead of "abortion should be outlawed in all cases."

BTW, for those who say there should be exceptions to an abortion ban for cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, an abortion ban with such exceptions would be much closer to the 'in all cases' choice (which Sen Allen did not choose) than the 'fetus is not viable' exception that Sen. Allen did choose. After all, the majority of abortions, as first term abortions, arguably fall into the "fetus is not viable" exception, while a very small percentage of abortions (I've seen numbers below 5%) fall into the rape/incest/life of mother exceptions.

3) This 2006 article by Fred Barnes discussing a conversation / interview he had with Sen. Allen:

George F. Allen is staring at me. The normally loquacious Virginia senator is not saying anything and neither am I. Silence hangs in the air for a few seconds.

The impasse, like so many other things in American politics, was owing to Roe v. Wade. Mr. Allen's position is carefully demarcated: He would like to see the decision "reinterpreted" to allow states to decide the legal status of abortion. Does that mean he would like to see it overturned? He won't say. So I suggest that Mr. Allen's "reinterpretation" would produce precisely the same result as overturning the ruling: States would decide the fate of abortion. I pause for a response. Nothing. I get more direct. "Why won't you say you want Roe reversed?"

Again, Mr. Allen is mum, and eventually I give up.