Rick Perry and his "Pro-Life" Decision

On February 2, 2007, Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, signed an executive order requiring all girls entering the sixth grade in Texas to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus. The only way to avoid getting your daughter vaccinated against this virus was if the parent filed a form "opting out."

The human papilloma virus is sexually transmitted and causes about 70% of all cervical cancers.

Some Texas lawmakers said vaccinating girls against the human papilloma virus would encourage girls to be sexually promiscuous.

Governor Perry had some interesting responses to his legislative detractors. He said, "Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than the hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," and "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it, claiming it would encourage smoking?"

But, the Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation reversing Governor Perry's executive order. He did not have the votes to keep his veto from being overriden, so he allowed the legislation to become law without his signature.

From then until he announced that he was running for President of the United States, Governor Perry staunchly defended his decision to issue the executive order requiring all sixth grade girls in the State of Texas to be vaccinated for HPV.

Among other things, he said these:

On May 9, 2007, at a news conference where he was accompanied by women who had had cervical cancer, including one who contracted the HPV from her rapist, he said, "In the next year, more than a thousand women will likely be diagnosed with this insidious yet mostly preventable disease. I challenge legislators to look these women in the eye and tell them, 'We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and grandaughters, but we didn't have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric.'"

In January 2010, when his gubernatorial election opponent, Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison raised the issue in a debate, he said, when asked if his decision to issue the executive order had been a mistake: "No, sir, not from my position. I stand proudly by my pro-life position."

When asked about it in a September 2010 interview, he said, "Let me tell you why it wasn't a bad idea. ... I knew I was going to take a political hit. ... At the end of the day, I did what was right from my perspective, and I did something that saved people's lives and, you know, that's a big deal."

He's right. It is a big deal. So, what will he do as President? Take the political hit to save people's lives?

Well, here's what he said after announcing that he was running for President when he was asked about his decision to issue the executive order: "I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't do my research well enough ... ," and "That particular issue is one that I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on."

So, what happened to "I stand proudly by my pro-life position"? What happened to accusing opposing legislators of not having the political gumption to do the right thing and save women's lives when we can?

All that changed in less than a year. Now it's a "mistake."

Now, there are a few options. The first option is that when he was taking his righteous stand in favor of vaccinating girls for HPV and accusing his opponents of not having enough gumption to do the right thing, he really meant it and ... now ... he's caved in and he's taking a politically expedient position because he wants to be President.

Another option is that when he was taking his righteous stand in favor of vaccinating girls for HPV and accusing his opponents of not having enough gumption to do the right thing, he didn't mean it and he was lying.

Or, finally, he might have meant it then, and be telling the truth now: he didn't do enough research before issuing an executive order that would affect tens of thousands of girls and their families.

I have my suspicions about which option is correct, but they are only suspicions. I can't know whether I'm right or not.

Nonetheless, anyone who is deciding whether to vote for Rick Perry for President of the United States will have to decide if any of those options is alright with them.

Do they want a President who changes his positions based on political expediency? Or do they want a President who lies? Of do they want a President who makes decisions affecting tens of thousands of people without sufficiently researching them?

Because, if you vote for Rick Perry, you'll be voting for a man for President who does at least one of those things.

On the other hand, we can ignore global climate change and in a few years it won't really matter who is President of the United States.