I have no problem with Allen. but let's acknowledge that his record as a US senator doesn't include votes on the issue of first trimester abortions for adult women - Roe insulates him (and alot of other pro-life republicans) from that - they can have an opinion on it, but can't do anything about it legislatively.
read the article I posted a link to above, google for some others related to it - my only point being, in a presidential campaign - he is going to be pressed on that position - not his legislative votes, his position.
And its a valid question - if Allen were elected president, Roe will be tossed (incrementally) because the next president gets to replace Ginsburg and Stevens. Its about time our party started explaining to the pro-life base what that really means - what it means for the abortion issue to return to the states. It does not mean abortion will be illegal across the US - and in fact, for adult women in the first trimester, will be legal in almost every state.
This election isn't going to be won on abortion.
And I imagine his views on abortion are better than hers.
I think it should be noted that back in August Senator Allen took a position regarding stem cell research.
He was clear.
If it involves destruction of human embroyos, he opposes it.
He will only support stem cell research if it does not destroy human embroyos.
This position does contradict previous statements.
But is relativly consistant with his voting record.