Kerry ties himself into such knots out of calculation. He cannot admit that he's a social liberal who could care less whether the Catholic Church objects to unborn babies being destroyed, so long as he's getting the votes of feminists by paying obeisance to Roe v. Wade. If Kerry were to make such a frank admission, of course, it would play poorly in swing states where people have the audacity not just to "respect" the moral tenets of their religious faith, but to believe in and act on them.

Kerry's straddle is to have (nominally) socially conservative positions, so long as they won't actually serve any socially conservative ends. He opposes gay marriage, but won't do anything that might stop it from coming about. He thinks life begins at conception (or so he has said, at least once), but won't do anything to stop its destruction. He opposes partial-birth abortion, but votes against banning it, and supports parental notification, but votes against requiring it.

Asked by an undecided voter in the St. Louis town-hall debate whether he would use the tax dollars of pro-life voters to fund abortion, Kerry said again how much he "respects" the pro-life position, but didn't really answer. Translation: "Yes, he will." That is the truest indication of just how little respect he has for the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. What is it they say about faith without deeds again?

What I do object to is this: While Kerry says he's opposed to "legislating" his faith on abortion, he insists that he's in favor of legislating his faith elsewhere. He said more than once Wednesday night, and plenty of times on the stump, that faith must be backed up by deeds. His religious faith, he says, is "why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."

So, let me get this straight. Fighting for the environment, equality, and education -- in the name of God -- is righteously doing the Lord's work, but abortion must be kept legal because otherwise we'd be legislating religion?...

Personally, I'm ambivalent about the role of religion in politics. I think zealots who want to purge all religion from the public square are ignorant about, among other things, American history and culture. For example, without religion the anti-slavery and civil-rights movements would have been impossible. To me, in politics morality is more important than theology, but it's foolish to dispute that much of our best morality derives from theology.

But what does offend me is the selective invocation of God. George Bush is basically consistent. He says God guides him in everything he does. John Kerry says that, too, but it's hard to see how he's not lying. His faith is clear on abortion. It's pretty darn murky on, say, affirmative action.

The so-called VeriChip Health Information Microtransponder System consists of the implantable computer microchip, an inserter, a proprietary hand-held scanner and a "secure database containing the patient-approved health care information," VeriChip Corp. said.

A group called the Health Privacy Project (HPP) said yesterday that steps should be taken to ensure that only information a patient wants disseminated is available.

"If privacy protections aren't built in at the outset, there could be harmful consequences for patients," HPP policy analyst Emily Stewart told Associated Press.

The goal of the ethically contentious, privately financed work -- which has already gained provisional approval from one Harvard committee -- is to develop new cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease and other ailments. The approach involves creating cloned human embryos that would be destroyed within days in order to retrieve stem cells growing within.

Several lines of evidence suggest stem cells from cloned embryos have greater potential as medical treatments than stem cells derived from unused embryos at fertility clinics, which are created by in vitro fertilization and are now the major source of stem cells for research.

Apparently, whatever scruples Senator Kerry has about his Catholicism informing his views of abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research don't affect his stances on many other political issues....So it's okay for Senator Kerry's Catholicism to influence his efforts against poverty, or to clean up the environment, or to fight for justice and equality. As he said, "All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith." But for some reason his Catholicism mustn't influence him to support the right to life for unborn children.

Thanks be to God, viewers of the debate were spared one misstatement Senator Kerry has imposed on audiences before: The claim that he accepts the Church's teaching on abortion, despite not being able to "impose that teaching on others." Presumably, he means by "accepting the Church's teaching on abortion" that he thinks abortion is something morally wrong and would never encourage a woman to have one. But, of course, the Church says more than that abortion is immoral. Cursing in your living room is immoral, but the Church doesn't advocate outlawing it.

Abortion is different because unborn children have an inalienable right to life, which the government must secure. Since Senator Kerry doesn't support the right to life for unborn children, it's false for him to claim to accept the Church's teaching on abortion, which includes supporting the right to life.

On its Web site, the Board of Education of Charles County, in Southern Maryland, affirms its belief that "there is value in diversity." That credo is in danger of being distorted by several members of the board. Among the ideas they are advancing: to have science classes offer instructional materials that teach creationism and cast doubt on evolution; to require books that stress America's history as "a Christian nation"; and to revamp sex education so it is informed by "theological perspectives of the Founders." Board members would also invite Gideons International to provide Bibles to students, and cull school reading lists to ban books offering "a neutral or positive view of immorality or foul language."

It is surprising how often the topic of straight divorce comes up in the discussion of gay marriage. The arguments go something like this: "No-fault divorce has cut the link between marriage and permanence. Everyone accepts this. Easy divorce has also called into question to idea that marriage is an institution for the good of the kids. A society that accepts unilateral divorce is a society that is willing to sacrifice the welfare of children to the comfort and happiness of adults, at least to some extent. Since straight people are unwilling to give up no-fault divorce, you can't very well claim that heterosexual marriage is about permanence and children. So how can you justify excluding gays from marriage?"

This rhetorical move ends the argument. The opponent of gay marriage is cowed into silence, for fear of being viewed either as a hypocrite or a bigot. But we need not be shamed into silence on this point. It is just that the alternative response requires us to look the divorce issue squarely in the face.

In the highly competitive world of paid companionship, Mae Lee knows that a string of disappointed clients can hobble an enterprise that thrives on reliability, discretion and customer satisfaction. The disappearance of Rachel meant that seven men that day would have their hourlong sessions canceled, turning their putative business meetings into aching voids of unrequited need....

Although her work is lucrative, she claims it is not just about the money. In a society with so many fraying marriages, Mae Lee says her services help keep families intact.

'Men have their needs,' she said, adding that it is better for a husband to seek satisfaction through a no-strings-attached prostitute than through a marriage-wrecking mistress. That philosophy, she says, partly explains why she closes shop in the evening and on weekends.

'I want these guys to go home after work and spend time with their families,' she said. 'That way everyone is happy.'"

Does the deliberate destruction of a human embryo equate to the taking of a human life?

It's a tough question; at the very least, those who answer in the affirmative deserve respect for their beliefs -- and, in any event, it's not a topic that lends itself to rational discussion in a political campaign.

One need only consider how badly science is served whenever "global warming" is raised to see where the stem-cell debate is headed.

Christopher Reeve was a man of great courage, with equally strong convictions.

His views, too, deserve respect -- but his memory will be done a disservice if it is exploited for partisan gain.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the NHS-funded charity that is the country's largest abortion provider, is facilitating illegal late terminations of healthy pregnancies for hundreds of women without medical justification, an investigation by The Telegraph has revealed.

Extensive covert video and audio recordings exposed a horrific underground industry in which women carrying healthy foetuses beyond the 24-week legal cutoff and who want to end their pregnancies for "social" reasons, travel to an abortion clinic in Spain on the recommendation of BPAS. The organisation refers them there as a matter of "policy".

Staff at the Clinica Ginemedex in Barcelona, last week agreed to abort the completely healthy 26-week foetus of an undercover reporter, who was referred to them by BPAS, without even asking for a reason. Babies born at 26 weeks have a 75 per cent chance of survival. The reporter, who had never intended to go ahead, declined their offer at the last minute.

Serafin brings up the issue of abortion. She asks Park, "If one of your daughters were raped and got pregnant, do you support her right to have an abortion?" Park says, "I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. So, a child created in that situation, as tragic as that is, I'm not going to compound it by having two tragedies. I would counsel my daughter. Let this baby come to term." Next, Serafin addresses Malia, "You are a supporter of abortion, yet you don't believe in the death penalty? Do you find this hypocritical?" Malia answers by saying she does oppose the death penalty because she doesn't believe in murder, but does not believe that abortion is murder. She continues to say, "I do not believe that my father or mother could tell me what to do with my life with something that is going to dramatically affect my life for the rest of my life. And I don't believe the government can do the same thing."

An unapologetic evangelical Christian, Gillespie was the only social conservative among the series' 10 contestants. None of them were really running for president, but as part of the show's "Survivor"-meets-a-political-campaign format they had to advance platforms, give speeches, film ads and engage each other in debates as if they really were.

Gillespie won even though no less a political prognosticator than high-powered pollster Frank Luntz, a consultant to the show, assessed his chances as slim -- given that Showtime's target demographic is 70-30 liberal.

This is just another one of Kerry's specious distinctions without a difference. He would vote only to confirm those justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade (and even partial-birth abortion), but would not apply a litmus test? Empty words, signifying nothing.

Even more disturbing was Kerry's repeated assertion that life begins at conception, but it's not his place to legislate his moral beliefs on the rest of the nation. "But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation."

Does this mean we can't pass laws against murder, stealing, rape, slavery or pedophilia, because they are grounded in morality, or because not everyone -- every last one -- agrees?

[Q]: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings, a surprise announcement that puts justices in the middle of a politically sensitive issue.

Justices have repeatedly refused to revisit issues raised by their 1980 decision that banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

In the meantime, lower courts have reached a hodgepodge of conflicting rulings that allow displays in some instances but not in others.

The high court will hear an appeal early next year involving displays in Kentucky and Texas.