More George Allen hypocrisy - this time on abortion

By: Rob
Published On: 3/14/2006 2:00:00 AM

You've gotta feel for ol' Kangaroo George.  He's running for re-election as Senator for a pro-choice state against pro-choice Dems.  At the same time, he's gunning for the presidential nomination of an anti-choice party.  What's a beltway insider to do?  Speak in riddles, of course!

One thing Allen managed to do, however, is contradict a firm position he's taken in the past.  Observe:

MR. RUSSERT: But you would outlaw all abortion except in cases of rape, incest?

SEN. ALLEN: Oh, I don't think the federal government ought to be making such laws. I think the laws ought to be determined by the people in the states. If South Dakota wants a law like that, they can have that. If South Carolina wants a different law, that?s up to South Carolina or Virginia or California.

Ok, got that?  Sen. Allen is against federal laws restricting abortion.  Now, twist your brain around this George Allen statement from 2000:

As a U.S. Senator, I will work and vote for an end to partial birth abortion in America. . . .Today's Supreme Court decision [allowing the procedure] makes it all the more pressing for Congress to adopt a national law that will stop the extreme procedure of partial birth abortion.
Source: Press Release, "Partial Birth Abortion Must End", Jun 28, 20 Sep 19, 2000

Looks like George Allen is for federal laws restricting abortion too!  In fact, almost exactly three years ago, Sen. Kangaroo voted for the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  What a way to let these laws "be determined by the people in the states."

p.s.  Wouldn't it be nice if the press did its job and perhaps followed up with this information when Allen makes this ridiculous  claim that he's against federal anti-abortion legislation?  Couldn't Tim Russert (or his interns) have done a little homework?  It's not like this statement by Allen should've been a surprise - his spokesmen made the same argument days before: 

Sen. George Allen's [Chief of Staff], Dick Wadhams, tells the Hotline that "Sen. Allen has consistently supported the rights of the people in their states to pass laws which reflect their views and values." 

"Consistently"?  Well, not exactly, Dick.

Comments



And you are suprised (John K. (John) - 4/4/2006 11:33:47 PM)
And you are suprised?  "State's rights" is the biggest code word out there.  In the 50's it meant allowing states to keep blacks in the back of the bus.  Today it means ensuring that rich old white men who control government can keep women and gays down (along with numerous other minority groups).  The idea of "state's rights" (outside the classical, Jeffersonian, interpretation which I respect) is that state's usually garrentee less rights, and the legislature and courts are easier to swing in favor of the new Christian Theocracy of the United States (CTUSA)(c).

If you read the full transcript, you can see Russert actually hitting on this.  Russert asks Allen if he would have a problem with a state deciding to allow unlimited abortions, on demand (probably through a drive thru like McDonalds or something).  Allen didn't even answer the question!! He just said that 'he didn't think any state would do that'.  He couldn't even answer whether he'd have a problem with actually allowing states to decide in favor of abortion! Allen did a remarkable job of staying on message though.  He really is the second coming of George Bush!

There are some people in the 'pro-life' movement with integrety, who actually have a consitent view (in my experience they are usualy catholics, but thats my experience), but all of their leaders are morally bankrupt frauds who are fishing for votes and want to oppress women by taking away their autonomy.  If these people were really 'pro-life', they would be the biggest progressives out there and support Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a social net that would rival France.  Oh yeah, they would also be anti-death penalty and would work to reduce the number of abortions while waiting to outlaw it outright by supporting contraceptives (instead of opposing them).  A bunch of inconsitant fools is all I see.

As a moral consistancy question, if you outlaw abortion, what do you do to women who violate the law and get an abortion anyway?  They are guilty of 'murder' right?  So is life in prision enough, or do you stick a needle in their arms?



Jerry Springer this (Chris from ASL - 4/4/2006 11:33:47 PM)
Jerry Springer this morning called Allen out on his bluff there...like this post, good points.


More priceless, Jame (Rob - 4/4/2006 11:33:48 PM)
More priceless, James, is the part where Sen. Allen both condemned and supported federal laws restricting abortion.  If he believes that a federal response is a legitimate way to address the Supreme Court's decision, why get on Russert's show and claim he always believes that these matters should be left to the states? 

Anyway, your point itself is off the mark.  Roe and it's progeny didn't prevent states from passing some laws but allow the feds to pass those same laws.  So, whatever law Allen supported in 2000, if the high court found it constitutional, then the states could have passed it too.
Nice try, though.