Another Republican anti-abortion hypocrite exposed

Forums: Politics, Abortion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Sen. George Allen turns to Plan B
The News Virginian
Sunday, August 6, 2006

Kurt Michael, chair of the Augusta County Republican Party, told us on Friday why he was such a fan of U.S. Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

"Character of that level is not found in other people," he said, referring to Allen, who is running for re-election against Republican-turned-Democrat Jim Webb.

We are troubled, however, that Allen is profiting off a drug that many of his evangelical supporters consider a form of abortion. Allen is staunchly pro-life yet owns stock in Barr Laboratories, makers of Plan B, or the morning-after contraceptive pill, according to his financial disclosure report.

Taken within 72 hours of intercourse, Plan B prevents pregnancy.

It seems hypocritical to oppose a woman's right to choose while investing in a drug that does just that.

Allen should dump his Barr stock.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,591 • Replies: 14

No top replies

Plan B prevents abortion.

I like him better knowing this.

0 Replies

I agree with Lash, Plan B is not abortion.

I am curious on what Allen's stance is on Plan B. He might not have known this company makes it.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Plan B prevents abortion.

I like him better knowing this.

Yes, it does. Glad you see that, Lash. But many other staunch conservatives equate plan B to abortion.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

But many other staunch conservatives equate plan B to abortion.

With good reason: the "morning after pill" or "Plan B" pill (RU-486) is an abortifacient, not a contraceptive. If the fertilized egg is considered equivalent to an embryo or a fetus, then there is no difference between taking Plan B and having an abortion.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
But many other staunch conservatives equate plan B to abortion.

With good reason: the "morning after pill" or "Plan B" pill (RU-486) is an abortifacient, not a contraceptive. If the fertilized egg is considered equivalent to an embryo or a fetus, then there is no difference between taking Plan B and having an abortion.

if i can indulge my weakness for splitting hairs, Plan B is only equivalent to abortion if the ovum was in fact fertilized, something that can't be determined after the fact, as far as i know.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
But many other staunch conservatives equate plan B to abortion.

With good reason: the "morning after pill" or "Plan B" pill (RU-486) is an abortifacient, not a contraceptive. If the fertilized egg is considered equivalent to an embryo or a fetus, then there is no difference between taking Plan B and having an abortion.

Like I said...SOME staunch conservatives consider plan B as equivalent to abortion.

I don't. I share Lash's belief that having access to this pill will reduce abortion, as many do not agree with your reasoning. And with good reason, I might add... :wink:

0 Replies

So because the egg might not be fertilized, it's OK? Hair-splitting, indeed.

0 Replies

sure, but the abortion question already is a case of hair-splitting--is an embryo or fetus a human being--so additional hair-splitting can't muddy things much more than they already are.

i might as well cover the bases and also point out that not every fertilized egg is implanted, nor is every embryo viable--miscarriages do occur naturally. so, it's quite unclear if taking Plan B constitutes abortion in any particular cirumstance.

0 Replies

Out of curiosity, BBB, are you a participant in any formal retirement or other investment program, and, if so, do you consider your participation in said program a personal endorsement of the products and activities of each and every of the entities the securities and other financial instruments of which constitute the capital assetts of that program?

0 Replies

Wow. A quick bit of Googling on <"george allen" "life begins at conception"> shows that there's a whole world of blogs etc out there that are to the RIGHT of George Allen. Who himself already is the most conservative of currently viable presidential candidates (if even he is one).

The truly fundamentalist religious apparently object to George Allen exactly because of the abortion issue; the RNC For Life Report even calls him "pro-choice", surely the ultimate insult. Instead, the preferred choice is more someone like Sam Brownback.

Why?

For one, because Allen has announced that if a bill like South Dakota's recent law, outlawing all abortion except in case the life of the mother was threatened, had come through his own state's legislature, he would have vetoed it. If only, apparently, because it outlaws abortion also in cases of rape and incest.

Moreover, Allen has apparently gone further still, having so far opposed abortion, but not all abortion. Not right from conception onward. This is where RNC For Life recalls sternly:

Quote:

In 2000, Senator Allen responded to a Project Vote Smart questionnaire, saying abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support. In other words, he supported abortion until viability, when 98% of the abortions are performed. He said abortions should be legal when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, when the life of the woman is endangered, and he added that abortion should be legal for gross fetal abnormality. Of course, he supported the usual restrictions such as a partial-birth abortion ban, waiting periods, and opposed public funding of abortions. But the views he expressed can only be described as pro-choice, not pro-life.

And on renewamerica.us, columnist Adam Graham notes:

Quote:

Allen has also issued ambiguous statements on abortion. Professor Ed Lynch writes:

"Allen has to clarify his position on abortion. During his run for the Senate in 2000, [..] 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."

Now Professor Lynch is confident that with some study, Allen will come to the conclusion that life begins at conception and provide a clear position on the issue. As he has yet to do so, its not at certain that he will be able to unite Conservatives [..].

A post on savethegop.com highlights Allen prevaricating ostensibly on overturning Roe vs Wade on Meet the Press, and in the comments, poster Alexander Brunk adds,

Quote:

George Allen was on record as a Congressman and Governor of Virginia that he supported abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. [..] Thats not pro-life.

In short, it looks like Allen has thus far only opposed abortion from a certain point onwards - from the third month on, from viability on, or whatever.

It is therefore not hypocritical of him to own stocks in a company that produces morning after pills.

Sources:
Save the GOP blog item
RNC For Life Report article
Renew America column

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

if i can indulge my weakness for splitting hairs, Plan B is only equivalent to abortion if the ovum was in fact fertilized, something that can't be determined after the fact, as far as i know.

That's quite true, but then, from the anti-abortion standpoint, it is largely immaterial. From that standpoint, placing Plan B in the hands of sexually active pre-menopausal women is the equivalent of placing a loaded handgun in the hands of a child -- the act is immoral whether or not someone actually ends up getting killed.

0 Replies

joe, good point. i'm simply not enough of an ethicist to be sure if there's morally no difference, but was not trying to imply that use of Plan B is perfectly moral.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

yitwail wrote:
if i can indulge my weakness for splitting hairs, Plan B is only equivalent to abortion if the ovum was in fact fertilized, something that can't be determined after the fact, as far as i know.

That's quite true, but then, from the anti-abortion standpoint, it is largely immaterial. From that standpoint, placing Plan B in the hands of sexually active pre-menopausal women is the equivalent of placing a loaded handgun in the hands of a child -- the act is immoral whether or not someone actually ends up getting killed.

Unfortunately, that anology is certainly not shared by a large majority of the American people. And thank god that it isn't.

It is just as immoral seeing our sons and daughters with guns in their hands killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Too bad there aren't more staunch conservatives who are appalled by the immorality of these events.

0 Replies

"'Cause it's money that matters
Hear what I say
It's money that matters
In the US of A..."

thankyou Randy Newman

0 Replies

Another Republican anti-abortion hypocrite exposed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know