The news last week that Charlie Baker decided to endorse Chris Christie for president received remarkably little critical attention, given how out of step Christie’s values are with most voters in Massachusetts.

Christie — who ended his bid Wednesday after a poor showing in New Hampshire — is avowedly antichoice, and proudly defunded Planned Parenthood in New Jersey.

On whether he believes the United States should lead on addressing climate change, Christie said, “Hell no!’’ Despite having had his home state experience unprecedented damage during Hurricane Sandy, including 34 deaths, in a recent television interview Christie said: “I just don’t buy that [climate change] is a crisis,’’ and went on to say, “That’s my feeling. I didn’t say I was relying on any scientist.’’

Christie may have appeared to be positively progressive compared to the leading Republican candidates, but his positions are harmful to women, harmful to our kids, and simply inconsistent with those held by Massachusetts voters. What would compel Governor Baker to make such an endorsement in a presidential primary when doing so is not required or even expected? And what does this say about his own views on these same issues?

Kelsey Wirth

Cambridge

The writer is founder and chairwoman of the climate change-awareness organization Mothers Out Front.