Sen. George "Dumber than a Post" Allen was on Meet the Press this morning. Here's his exchange with Tim Russert on abortion (bolding added for emphasis):
MR. RUSSERT: Something else happened this week, Senator Allen, in South Dakota. And this is how The New York Times reported it: ?Governor Michael Rounds, the Republican Governor of South Dakota, signed into law the nation?s most sweeping state abortion ban. ... The law makes it a felony to perform any abortion except in a case of a pregnant woman?s life being in jeopardy.? No exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother. Would you like to see that law, the law of the United States of America?SEN. ALLEN: Well, first of all I respect and support the right of the people in the states to pass laws that reflect their values and their desires. For the country, I think each state ought to make those decisions. Personally, I think that there should be exceptions for rape and incest because I look at the person. There is a victim of a crime, and if they so choose they ought to have that option.
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.
MR. RUSSERT: And if a state said unlimited abortion on demand, you would abide by that?
SEN. ALLEN: Well, I don?t agree with that approach.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said states should determine...
SEN. ALLEN: But the, but the?if a state did that?I can?t imagine too many states or any state having one that allows abortion for all nine months for any reason or no reason at all. But that would be the right of the people of the states. And for those?but if a state like South Dakota wants a law like that, even though it?s not exactly what I would think is appropriate, that does reflect the will of the people. This is a representative democracy and I think that?s appropriate approach.
MR. RUSSERT: It would means that Roe vs. Wade would have to be overturned, which you would support?
SEN. ALLEN: I think Roe vs. Wade has been interpreted in such a way that it precludes the rights of the people to decide their laws. When I was governor, we passed the law on parental notification. I think parents ought to be involved if a girl who?s 16, 17 years old...
MR. RUSSERT: So you say overturn Roe. You hope Roe is overturned.
SEN. ALLEN: Well, Roe?if you need parental notification for ear piercing or a tattoo, they certainly ought to be involved with it. And so I think Roe vs. Wade has been interpreted in such a way as to restrict the will of people. Moreover, that decision was from the early 1970s and medical science has advanced a great deal. We know a lot more and of course, unborn children have an earlier stage of development.
MR. RUSSERT: So overturn?
SEN. ALLEN: The point is, rather than arguing on a legal term, the point of the matter is the people in the states ought to be making these decisions. And if that?s contrary to the dictates of Roe vs. Wade, so be it. Because the way that Roe vs. Wade has been interpreted is taking away the rights of the people in the states to make these decisions.
Huh? Can someone please tell me what Sen. Allen just said here? Does Allen believe that Roe v. Wade be overturned? Does he believe that states should decide abortion rights, whether they want to completely outlaw it with no exceptions (e.g., for rape, incest, or the life of the mother) or legalize it in all cases? Does George Allen even know what he's talking about? Is this guy really dumber than a post, or is he just doing a really good imitation of someone without much upstairs? But, but, but, but, um, but, um....
Ee gads.