Democrats Skeptical on Thomas Testimony : Court: He denies ever discussing Roe vs. Wade with friends or reading anti-abortion article he once praised.

Senate Democrats voiced increasing skepticism Wednesday about the testimony of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, who said during a second day of hearings that he had never discussed the Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling with friends and had not even read a controversial anti-abortion article that he once praised as “splendid.”

The Democrats, who hold eight of the 14 seats on the Judiciary Committee, criticized Thomas for being less than candid with members of the panel and for distancing himself from his own provocative comments of the past.

Thomas insisted that his past statements on issues such as abortion, affirmative action and “natural law” do not necessarily reflect how he would decide cases that come before the high court, where he would replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall.

“I advocated as an advocate, and now I will rule as a judge,” he said.

At least three Democrats--Sen. Howell Heflin of Alabama, Howard M. Metzenbaum of Ohio and Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin--said Thomas’ testimony sounded like a “confirmation conversion.” The same accusation was leveled at then-Judge Robert H. Bork for an 11th-hour repudiation of some of his most controversial writings during confirmation hearings four years ago that ended in the defeat of his nomination.

“I have serious reservations about” Thomas, Kohl said. “He is telling us to just disregard his past record.”

After a sharp half-hour exchange with Thomas on the abortion issue, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) declared: “I’m not satisfied with his answers to my questions. I’ll be back for more.”

The criticism of Thomas’ testimony does not necessarily signal that the nomination of the 43-year-old black conservative, now a judge on the federal appellate court here, is in serious trouble. Thomas’ rise from humble origins and his passionate talk of furthering equal rights for all have won praise even from his critics. And no committee Democrat has yet declared that he will vote against confirmation.

But Thomas’ soft-pedaling of his past writings and his no-comment response on abortion appear to have fired up the Democrats to push harder for answers in the next two days.

“It means it’s not locked up yet,” said Melanne Verveer, executive vice president of People for the American Way, a liberal group that opposes Thomas. The vote in the Judiciary Committee is expected to turn on Heflin and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and “they sounded skeptical,” she said.

But Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Thomas’ friend and mentor, said that President Bush’s nominee is not in trouble. “I think he’s done extraordinarily well and is headed for confirmation,” Danforth said after Wednesday’s session. The committee expects to continue questioning Thomas today and Friday.

The Supreme Court handed down the Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973, when Thomas was a student at Yale Law School. When pressed by Leahy, Thomas not only refused to state his opinion on the ruling or the right to abortion that it affirmed, but also asserted that he had never discussed the decision or formulated an opinion on it.

Thomas said he was married during his law school days and too busy to think about the issue or discuss the ruling with friends or classmates.

“I went to class, I went to work and then I went home,” he said.

Committee members, however, were clearly skeptical. “If that is true, he is the only adult in the room who doesn’t have an opinion on it,” Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) said.

In 1986, Thomas--then chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--was cited as one of the co-signers of a White House “working group” report on the family that, among other things, criticized the Roe vs. Wade ruling as “fatally flawed.” On Wednesday, Thomas surprised committee members by not only disavowing those statements, but also asserting that he has never read--either then or now--the report he had signed.

He also repudiated his previous endorsement of a controversial 1987 article by conservative patron Lewis Lehrman. The article calls abortion a “holocaust” and insists that the Constitution gave fetuses a “right to life.”

Though in 1987 he called Lehrman’s article a “splendid example of applying natural law,” he said during the first day of hearings that he did not agree with its conclusions. On Wednesday, he went even further, asserting that he did not read the article in 1987 and has not read it recently, even though it has been cited repeatedly by his critics in recent weeks.

“Did you believe the article was ‘a splendid example of applying natural law?’ ” asked Leahy, a former Vermont prosecutor.

“I do not,” Thomas replied. “My testimony is that, with respect to those issues, I do not believe Mr. Lehrman’s application of natural law is appropriate.” He said he praised the article only to persuade conservatives that they should support “more aggressive enforcement of civil rights.”

“Had you read the article before you praised it?” Leahy asked.

“I think I skimmed it, senator,” Thomas replied.

If Lehrman’s position was adopted by the Supreme Court, abortion would be considered murder in all instances, Leahy noted. “Did you understand the position that he was taking?” Leahy inquired.

“I could not recall the entire content of that article,” Thomas replied.

“You have read the article now,” the senator said.

“I have not re-read it,” Thomas said, adding that he does not have a copy.

The senator asked Thomas to read the four-page article by today.

“Sometime between now and then, could you please find time to read it?” the senator asked. If not, during his next opportunity to ask Thomas questions he will “just stop and give you time to read it then,” he said.

Last year, the Bush White House won confirmation for Supreme Court nominee David H. Souter in part because the little-known New Hampshire judge had made few controversial pronouncements and in part because he answered the committee’s questions in a detailed and thoughtful way.

Thomas, however, has voiced provocative, conservative opinions in speeches and articles on subjects such as abortion, working women, welfare, affirmative action and the minimum wage. But, rather than defend those opinions at his confirmation hearings, Thomas has told the committee that his past statements do not necessarily represent his current beliefs or would have no effect on his decisions as a judge.

“I have no agenda,” he told the committee Monday. “I don’t have an ideology to take to the court to do all sorts of things.”

In contrast with the first day of hearings, when Thomas appeared uncertain and shaky in his answers, the nominee spoke with more assurance Wednesday. At each break, he grinned broadly and shook hands vigorously with the senators, even those who had questioned him sharply.

He acknowledged that he had caused problems for himself by sounding off in recent years on a host of controversial topics.

“To the extent that Judge Souter was a Stealth nominee, I’m Bigfoot,” he joked.

On other topics, Thomas told the committee:

* He supports the current Supreme Court position on church-state matters and opposes official school prayers that could exclude Jews or other non-Christians. The comment may be significant because the issue of religion is in flux in the high court. When Simon asked him about the experience of a Jewish schoolchild who in the 1950s left his classroom during Christian prayers, Thomas said: “Any policy of exclusion is inappropriate and wrong.” He said he has “no disagreement” with current court doctrines that forbid any government “endorsement” of religion.

* As a justice of the high court, he would read congressional debates and committee reports to determine the intent of laws under review. Justice Antonin Scalia has led a move within the court to discount congressional debates and rely only on the actual language of a law in deciding cases. Thomas said he disagrees with that approach as overly restrictive.

* He approves of affirmative action programs that seek to recruit qualified minorities but opposes those setting “preferences, goals, timetables and quotas.” The Yale Law School, he said, sought “to reach out and open its doors to minorities whom it felt were qualified. I have advocated that very kind of affirmative action and I would advocate that throughout my life.”

* He was “very, very pained” on a “personal level” to realize that pregnant women once underwent dangerous, back-alley abortions. When he was growing up in rural Georgia, “you heard the hushed whispers about illegal abortions and the individuals who performed them in a less-than-safe environment,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see people subjected to torture of that nature.”

* He has not formulated a personal or legal opinion on whether a fetus is a human life or whether a pregnant woman should be able to choose abortion. “I have not made a decision on that one way or the other,” he said.

After the hearing, senators and women’s rights advocates expressed disbelief that Thomas did not have a personal opinion on abortion and had not arrived at a legal opinion about the Roe vs. Wade ruling.

“He is apparently one of only two lawyers in the country who do not have an opinion on it,” said Patricia Ireland, executive vice president of the National Organization for Women, which opposes his nomination. “The other, of course, is David Souter.”