| Our political scene is rife with hypocrisy these days.
Reminds me of an expression, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds . . ."
Looked at websites on line and did not find your picture next to the expression. Under Webster definition of "consistency," no Barkus likeness.
Just how much of an individual's conduct should the government be involved with?
Not my guns, by God.
How I raise my kids and treat my spouse. Ditto.
But, a woman's right to choose and to enjoy the right to privacy is another matter altogether. No. No. Wait a minute. According to you, that everybody's business
Montana's constitutional guarantee for individual privacy is much, much stronger than United State Constitution.
When it comes to reproductive rights, the Montana constitution is the only thing that has stood in the way of you and your loony cohorts in the legislature to systematically whittle away the right of privacy.
When it comes to attacking the right of women to exercise their right to make reproductive choices and to do so in the privacy of their homes, an examination room or in their prayers without governmental interference, you have exhibited an appalling consistency.
You're against that right of privacy. And, why? To protect innocent lives.
It all sounds so noble.
Hmmm.
I have navigated several websites and discovered an appalling consistency.
This is the only one I could find that lists most of your votes (2003 through 2009) on reproductive rights issues.
Here are my favorites from 2009:
SB 46: Protection of Unborn Life as Compelling State Interest.
SB 406: Constitutionally Define Person
In every case I could find, you voted to eliminate or weaken the right of privacy for women. If there is a single instance where you did not, please let me know.
After you returned from your stay at the Seattle hospital for surgery to repair your pelvis, which was badly injured in the boating accident, you said, "I'm trying to get to feeling better, and when everyone else is feeling better, we'll start talking."
Any update on that "feeling better," Greg?
Your attorney evidently is not returning calls from the media. And, you do not seem disposed to talk.
I can understand that Dustin Frost may not be feeling a whole lot better and likely won't for years to come. Perhaps this was a life-changing experience for you and the pangs of guilt may haunt you and prevent from ever feeling better.
Will there be a time when you feel "better" enough to come clean?
But, that only begs the question. But, why suppress the results of your BAC? Why do the results of your BAC deserve to be protected exactly?
Why is it that the results of your medical examination in one regard (BAC) rise to a different standard than those of women who learn the results of medical examinations regarding their pregnancies?
The privacy surrounding your BAC deserves to be protected but the medical examinations of women do not?
Should I assume that you believe that government should intrude into the lives of women on the most personal and emotional medical discussion/ decisions and regard them as a "compelling state interest" but not release medical information regarding boaters involved in serious accidents?
The right of privacy regarding the reproductive rights of women deserves to be protected as a fundamental.
Your right to act irresponsibly and endanger the well-being of others does not.
Do you suppose the surgeons quietly repaired your hypocrisy while you were sedated and you haven't rehabbed enough to know? |
