![]() |
| Rhino: Republican in name only. |
At the candidate's forum in Gerard Hall on Thursday I noticed that GOP HD37 primary candidate Tami Christensen didn't pass out the usual fliers. Instead, they were make-shift done-at-home fliers that changed some wording around. I notice that her brochure said, "I am not pro-abortion. But I am women's rights."
Knowing that she pronounced herself pro-choice at the last forum, I asked "Ms Christensen, I seek a point of clarification. Knowing you called yourself pro-choice at the last forum and this brochure says you're not 'pro-aborton' and those are synonymous terms, here's my question; is elective, induced abortion something that you would protect or oppose as a legislator."
She said, "Jordan, I'm glad you asked. I made a sort of 'faux pas' last time. I didn't mean to say I was 'pro-choice.' I meant to say I was 'pro-women's rights.' And besides, I'm not running for the Supreme Court so I don't know why it matters...."
I briefly interrupted her and said that abortion is a legislative issue (which she knows very well, because her father chooses not to show up to vote whenever abortion is discussed from the House floor) and that our Montana income tax also pays for abortion which is a legislative issue. She said "stop interrupting me" and I responded "stop being disingenuous."
Christensen then continued to say she wouldn't stop abortion because she's "not God" and she's "not judgmental."
What are the presuppositions here?
First, do you have to be God to make a judgment of right and wrong? And if so, why is she for women's rights? How can she be for or against anything? If she's not God, then how can she make such a judgment that women's rights are right? It seems she's being "judgmental."
Is murder wrong, Ms Christensen? Why can you answer that question? You're not God.
Is theft wrong, Ms Christensen? Why can you answer that question? You're not God.
Is creating false invoices to defraud Basic energy wrong? Why can you answer that question? You're not God.
Heaven forbid we have legislators that can make decisions concerning what is right and wrong. What harm would fall on our society if we had legislators govern morally?
Christensen knows that "pro-choice" is synonymous with "pro-abortion" and it's synonymous with "women's rights" (is suffrage still an issue?). She's being dishonest with the voters and hoping we're dumber than she is.
Christensen knows abortion is regularly a legislative issue and not relegated completely to the judicial system. She's being dishonest with the voters.
Christensen knows she's signed a confession of fraud, and yet pleads her innocence. She's being dishonest with voters.
Yes. Character matters.

