Following Gov. Chris Christie's and Sen. Rand Paul's comments Monday on parental choice in vaccinations, House Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Ted Cruz on Tuesday offered their own takes, stressing the importance of getting vaccinations.

"We’ve got two little girls; we’ve vaccinated both our girls and would encourage people to do the same," Cruz (R-Tex.) told Politico.

Boehner (R-Ohio) added: “I don’t know that we need another law, but I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated."

And Christie (R-N.J.) has of course joined them, clarifying that people should vaccinate their kids. A spokesman said Monday: "The governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection, and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated."

All three of these response have been characterized as different from Christie's initial comments. And in emphasis, they are. But in substance, they aren't really saying anything contrary to what Christie got in trouble for.

Christie didn't get in trouble for saying that kids shouldn't get vaccinated. (In fact, he also stressed in his initial comments that, “Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated and we think that it’s an important part of being sure we protect their health and the public health.") What he got in trouble for saying parents should have discretion over whether their kids are vaccinated. He suggested it should be a choice, to some degree.

None of the responses above -- not Boehner's, not Cruz's, nor Christie's clarification -- disagree with the idea of choice.

And in fact, neither do Democrats. In her tweet, Hillary Clinton made no mention of mandating vaccines either, instead opting for the vaccines-are-important construct.

Even the White House acknowledged the choice that exists. Press secretary Joshua Earnest said Friday, "... I am going to suggest that the president’s view is that people should evaluate this for themselves, with a bias toward good science and toward the advice of our public health professionals, who are trained to offer us exactly this kind of advice."

Christie never disagreed with the idea that vaccines work, and neither for that matter did Paul (R-Ky.), who stressed that his own children got their own vaccines -- albeit not all at the same time. Paul, it should be emphasized, is on his own island when it comes to suggesting vaccines could lead to adverse health risks -- something not backed up by science.

Clinton and the White House do go a little further, stressing that vaccines are safe, but they aren't calling for blanket mandates, either.

And indeed, choice already exists -- to some degree. Almost every state, in fact, allows for people to opt out of vaccines for religious beliefs, and many also allow for it due to personal beliefs.

The real political debate here is about whether vaccines should be mandated, not whether they work. But nobody wants to actually talk about that, because it's a hugely nuanced issue.

Boehner was about the only one to talk about that aspect of the debate, saying "I don’t know that we need another law." Since existing state laws allow for personal and religious exceptions, that's effectively allowing for some measure of choice in vaccinations. Which is what Christie got in trouble for in the first place.

The difference between Boehner and Christie is Boehner said it in a much, much better way. But much like Boehner, neither Cruz, Christie, Clinton, or even the White House, is advocating for rolling back exceptions for vaccinations.

Until politicians start taking positions on precisely how mandatory vaccines should be, they're basically all saying the same thing -- albeit with different emphases.

This post has been updated.