2008 Platform (filtered to redundant)

Should not label terrorism the "greatest" threat. That is unproven.

Profiling's usefulness is unproven, and permissibility must be determined within existing legal framework. It is a polarizing issue and should not be pushed in the platform.

Protecting Constitutional rights is a generic expectation of all government officials and does not need mentioning here. The war on terrorists is about a lot more than Constitutional rights.

The consequence for terrorist activity is already clear: we will destroy you.

Revision of Patriot Act handled separately.

Reword to make more clear.

The felon reference should be in the Felon Voting plank.

There is painfully little evidence of disenfranchised military personnel. Extending the right to vote to all eligible voters is a  basic conservative principle that needs no repetition.

Language needs simplification.

There is no meaningful "assault" on marriage in the Texas or federal judiciary outside a limited, long-shot ruling by a Democrat activist judge in Dallas County.

The discrepancy in the "married filing jointly" standard deduction was addressed in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 caused it to be implemented in 2003.

It is a slippery slope to cherrypick subjects eligible for judicial review.

Marriage is a state issue and should continue to be a state issue. We do not need yet another federal mandate on states.

Recognition or granting of benefits is of the purview of the private sector. We should not be like liberals and increase regulation of the private sector.

The last two sentences are redundant with other parts of the platform or simply commonsense.

Homosexual acceptance is increasing in America, even among conservatives and Christians. An anti-gay crusade cannot help the Republican's relevance to society.

That being said, many thoughtful people see homosexuality as a personally destructive lifestyle choice. While government's job is not to decide morality or affirm either viewpoint, it must fully affirm one's right to hold and express their chosen viewpoint. Furthermore, conservatives support the Constitutional right to free association, which in part means sectarian and noncommercial movements have a right to define their own moral codes that may prevent their association with what they view as improper moral choices.

Marriage is handled in a different plank, and the courts have been clear about our constitutional right to free association.

This plank grossly overshoots any reasonable proposal.

"any form of medical care" is ridiculous: it would require explicit parental endorsement of any act of emergency care, first aid, and simple nurse care at schools.

The rest of this plank is terribly misguided: Our quest to limit abortion must be based on conservative principles. It must not use Democrat tactics like increasing government interference, changing the operation of our justice system, or interfere with parental or patient confidentiality.

The main point of this plank is to address the abortion issue, so it is redundant with the main abortion plank.

The "morning after pill" has no unusual dangers. While research on its abortifacient qualities is inconclusive, the preponderance of evidence suggests that both:

1. Its most effective, and possibly only, mechanism is in preventing ovulation.
2. "Reported evidence demonstrates that making ECPs more widely available does not increase risk-taking and that women who are the most diligent about ongoing contraceptive use are those most likely to seek emergency treatment." (Trussell J, Raymond EG, April 2007, "Emergency contraception: a cost-effective approach to preventing unintended pregnancy," Princeton University)

Regardless, our Right to Life plank fully covers harm to fetuses; this plank is therefore redundant.

We need to quit distracting ourselves from the goal, which is stated succinctly in the Right to Life plank.

This is also redundant with other planks.

The plank is internally redundant. If you oppose a practice, then of course you oppose funding for the practice!

Embryo adoption is really just embryo donation, already a common practice. And it's of questionable practicality for dealing with surplus embryos. As of 2006, CBS reported 400,000 surplus embryos (link). As of August 2009, only 207 had been handled under this program (source). That is only one twentieth of one percent, or 0.05%. This should not be in a platform document.

The first sentence repeats earlier statements.

Parents have the right to withdraw children from special education as of December 2008.

"We urge the Legislature to enact penalties for violation of parental rights." is unacceptably vague.

This duplicates other statements on federal powers.

Kindergarten has been a productive part of K-12 public education for decades.

There is no mandatory preschool in Texas, and there is no movement to create such a program.

There is nothing about early childhood development programs that justifies special mention. More generic planks adequately address opposition to government expansionism.

The first sentence is redundant with concepts stated elsewhere.

Texas Family Code Section 261.101 already requires reporting of child abuse by employees of any agency, public or private, that works with children.

The US Department of Justice already does that.

The last sentence just restates the competitive bid idea.

Already stated in a prior plank.

Support of alternative energy is mentioned elsewhere.

Domestic jobs are a product of a sound economy. Other planks sufficiently address sound economic principles.

This plank's point is unclear. Civil defense is still alive. It has shifted away from responding to miliary attack and is now focused on natural and general disasters.

Gun laws are handled elsewhere.

Already handled elsewhere.