The short version is that liberals don't want to deal with consequences, especially natural ones and especially consequences of sex. While Ms. Farris takes a passing swipe at the record of the abstinence-based "sex education" programs Perry has championed (ineffectual both because she clearly doesn't care about the issue of teen sexual activity, and because the only source she gives admits there's not enough knowledge to base a conclusion on), her main point is – guess what? – a huffy defense of what's been ironically labeled "reproductive rights". Which rights are otherwise known as abortion and indiscriminate birth control, which it's imagined the government should somehow pay for. Never mind that the government's never officially and en masse done anything like that until Obama did his thing. Now it's done, Perry possibly undoing that measure would be a violation of these rights. Wait, what?
(And Ms. Farris, that "DIC" you talk about? If Perry were elected and created any such institution, with the current mood of the Republican party he'd lose half his support – or haven't you heard about the Tea Party and limited government?)
I mock, I summarize. Here's a fun one: the article doesn't even mention the decision that most concerns most Republicans, the HPV vaccine debacle. Me, I've heard other sources question whether the vaccine works as well as it should, whether he violated Texas' constitutional procedure, and so forth, and that makes me a little leery. But Perry pushed this women's health initiative through in the face of his (Republican) legislature which in fact overturned it. Bad idea? Maybe. But where's the narrative about Perry courageously standing up to his party to do something for women?
...Yeah, I didn't think so. Apparently all that matters any more to the feminist left is the right to kill children.