I'll give credit where credit is due. The South Dakota Republican Party (SD GOP) must be applauded.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still a Constitution Party guy. I still firmly believe that the Constitution Party remains America's best national political party based solely upon the issues, including that of abortion. However, when the South Dakota legislature banned virtually all abortions last week, the SD GOP set the bar extremely high for the Constitution Party to follow.

This is ironic indeed. Usually it is the Constitution Party that sets the bar high for Republicans. Regardless of its own platform, the national Republican Party is actually pro-abortion because it has accomplished more damage to the cause for Life due to its constant pursuance of a "pragmatic", compromising strategy of incrementalism. After three decades of sell-out and compromise since the Roe v. Wade decision , the Republican Party has produced no leadership whatsoever committed to a full frontal assault. That is why the SD GOP must be commended today.

Moreover, with recent weaknesses emerging within the usually no-nonsense Constitution Party, it appears as if the SD GOP has now shown up the Constitutionalists, at least with regard to this issue. Unbeknownst to many third party observers, a recent ongoing struggle has persisted within the Constitution Party as to whether it should pursue a truly principled pro-life avenue, or traverse the deceptively enticing road of compromise and Big Tentism idolized by much of the Republican Party establishment.

One thing is certain in this writer's mind: broad is the way to destruction.

The issue centers upon the Constitution Party's Nevada affiliate, the Independent American Party (IAPNV), which had elected a state chairman who publicly proclaimed on numerous occasions that rape-conceived children are mere "intruders" and that women have the "right" to abort them. Such a dastardly view is not only so obviously unbiblical and unconstitutional at the outset, but it is also a view totally contrary to that of the party's potent pro-life plank.

The CP National Committee is therefore debating whether to disaffiliate the IAPNV in order to preserve its own legitimacy as America's only genuine pro-life party. Those who oppose disaffiliation cite "party growth" as their main rationale. However, unless the IAPNV voluntarily replaces its chairman, which is my hope, the National Committee absolutely has no choice but to disaffiliate it. Unless, of course, it chooses to follow in the footsteps of Republican Party double-dealing.

Bottom line: a national party whose state affiliates elect chairmen who believe in abortion cannot legitimately be a pro-life party.

The danger for the national Constitution Party is that it would necessarily surrender any moral authority to criticize any other pro-abortion party. For example, it cannot ever again issue press releases criticizing George W. Bush for appointing pro-aborts to key positions, such as Albert Gonzalez. To do so would render the party hypocritical at best. How dare a party that tolerates its own state affiliates to elect pro-abortion chief officers, criticize the President of the United States for appointing similar officers?

In March of 2000, National Chairman Jim Clymer issued a hard-hitting press release in the form of a letter to Alan Keyes. In the letter, Clymer wrote:

"The Republican Party is the proverbial 'house divided against itself' on both policy and principle. If the restoration of Constitutional government and the end to 'legal' abortion in America is your goal, then the 'Big Tent' strategy of the GOP is ridiculous on its face. Some in that 'tent' are pro-abortion and some are pro-life. Some are for enforcing the Constitution and the 10th Amendment, some are against it. How can a party that is fundamentally divided on these issues ever serve as the vehicle to champion them in the public arena? The lack of unity within the GOP on core issues like abortion... prevent it from ever putting American back on the right track. No matter how many platforms conservatives write, no matter how many brilliant speeches you deliver, the division will remain and the principles that you espouse will, in all likelihood, never be brought to dominance within the GOP."

Clymer was absolutely correct when he wrote this six years ago. The irony is that the letter may soon be the sort that the SD GOP could write about the Constitution Party.

If the Constitution Party were to issue the same press release today without doing anything to disaffiliate the IAPNV or to persuade the IAPNV to replace its chairman with a legitimate pro-lifer, then the national party would sink to new depths of foolishness.

Other than its acknowledgement of King Jesus Christ in its Preamble, the Constitution Party's trademark is its Sanctity of Life plank. It is its bread-and-butter. It is the absolute key to its party growth because it has the potential to attract millions of disenchanted pro-life voters who have been sold a Republican bill of goods, thereby delivering a blow to the GOP solar plexus.

Some good folks in the Constitution Party argue that disaffiliation of the IAPNV only hurts the national party because it necessarily "shrinks" its numbers. They explicitly call for a "big tent" philosophy.

But, as Clymer correctly penned back in 2000, this strategy is "ridiculous on its face." Why should anybody be motivated to leave one big tent for another? Something more compelling is needed.

I am hopeful that the Constitution Party of 2006 has not drifted from the Constitution Party of 2000 that I later fell in love with. The Constitution Party was forged in principle, and not intended to serve as a cheap knock-off. One GOP is one GOP too many. But unless this issue is decided on the side of the unborn, the Constitution Party will have taken its most decisive step toward Copy Cat City. Been there, done that.

In 1996, Republican Party Presidential nominee Bob Dole was asked what he thought of the thoroughly pro-life platform passed by the National Convention delegates in San Diego. His reaction summed up the ho-hum attitude of the Republican Party establishment: "I haven't read the Platform and I'm not bound by it anyway."

Has the Constitution Party National Committee read its own pro-life platform lately? It's quite strong indeed. In its mere 14 years of existence, the Constitution Party has shown itself to be big talkers, especially on the abortion issue. But now it's time to walk the walk.

Strong platform planks require strong actions to back them up, or they aren't worth the paper they're written on. The Constitution Party has always prided itself on promises of strong action. Big promises.

Well, here's its first big chance to make good: Talk? Or walk?

AD 2006 The Heustis Update, accessible on the web at http://www.ReedHeustis.com All Rights Reserved.