John Kerry may be a war hero, but he is a coward when it comes to articulating his position on abortion.

On Jan. 26, in Portsmouth, N.H., he declared himself to be the only Democrat in the race who hasn’t “played games” on this issue. A week later, when it came time to head south where radical liberalism is a hard sell, it was difficult, if not impossible, to pin the “tale” on this donkey.

Boston Globe reporter Patrick Healy reported that, in Missouri, Kerry advisers circulated a newspaper article that said the Massachusetts senator personally opposed abortion “as an article of faith” because he is required to do so as a Catholic.

A transcript of his interview with Missouri reporters revealed that Kerry then went on to explain that a lawmaker should not “legislate his personal beliefs.” Healy pointed out that this line was not included in the published story. How very fortunate for Mr.. Kerry! Had it been, Missouri voters would have known this man was either trying to sidestep the issue, or he is a total dork.

If Kerry did not legislate his beliefs, pray tell, on what did he base all his votes? Someone else’s personal beliefs, as in “the devil made me do it”? Kerry would be better off using that one. It just might fly.

Kerry went on to tell reporters that the constitutional “separation of church and state” forbids lawmakers from regulating abortion based on their religious beliefs. Would someone please buy this man a copy of our Constitution! Maybe he could ask his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, to buy him one? After all, the ketchup heiress buys him everything else. We’re talking about a man in serious need here!

Kerry also has promised voters that, if he is elected president, he will nominate only justices for the Supreme Court who support the Roe v. Wade decision handed down by the 1973 high court and the endless array of abortion rights he has championed. At the same time, Kerry denies – with a straight face (that part is very important) – that this is a litmus test.

He calls it defending “settled law.” At one time the Dred Scott decision that defended slavery was settled law. Does he really want to go there?

As for the Constitution forbidding lawmakers from casting their votes based on their religious beliefs, where is that in the Senate handbook? Would someone please show that to Sen. Rick Santorum, a fellow Catholic who introduced the bill that banned the brutal form of infanticide known as the “partial birth abortion”?

You don’t have to believe in God to know that killing a baby in the very act of birth is just plain wrong, not to mention barbaric, but the pious-when-convenient Kerry was one of a handful of the most politically hardened senators to vote against it.

Kerry, however, tries to finesse this vote, bragging about his 100 percent pro-abortion voting record to the NOW crowd but telling voters in more conservative areas that it was because the ban contained no exception for the “health” of the mother.

You have to be pretty stupid to keep falling for that one after the pro-abortion American Medical Association came out against this procedure. Partial birth abortions were done for the convenience of abortionists. It also allowed them to exploit a loophole in the law to avoid one of the most common complications of late-term abortions – a live birth.

Anyone with a brain instinctively knows that you don’t help a pregnant woman by killing a child that is partially delivered! Kerry obviously thinks a large portion of the electorate is simply too dumb to figure that out.

This brings us back to the question of religion, or Kerry’s questionable practice of his faith. If a lawmaker has deeply held religious beliefs on abortion – or presumably any other issue – he wants us to believe he or she is somehow obligated to vote with those who don’t.

I would remind Mr.. Kerry that most of our Founding Fathers were men of faith. They didn’t create this country and then ask if there were any atheists out there who could come in and run it.

There is no such thing as a value-free law. Every law that is made is based on someone’s set of values.

In Kerry’s case, he simply is trying to hide what he believes from the voters. What else is he going to hide or try to obfuscate?

Mr.. Kerry should be honest enough to state his position on this issue and brave enough to defend it.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.