Battle for Foster Nomination Playing Out Behind Scenes : Surgeon general: Both sides treading lightly on abortion, race issues. White House looks to Republican senators on panel for support.

Eleven weeks after the announcement of his nomination as surgeon general, Dr. Henry W. Foster Jr. has become the new Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Washington--a low-profile figure, living quietly in a rented apartment here while larger powers struggle behind the scenes over his fate.

The battle over Foster raged hot and bitter only a few weeks ago, with Foster seemingly on the brink of a humiliating fall. But now the atmosphere is ominously quiet, as both sides exercise a certain caution over the volatile abortion and race issues at the core of the debate and save themselves for the decisive conclusion, which is scheduled to begin unfolding in a Senate committee hearing room May 2.

The White House continues to express optimism that its nominee for the post--the second since President Clinton took office--ultimately will be confirmed.

“Once Dr. Foster has a chance to appear before the committee and talk about his life work in obstetrics and gynecology and the problems of teen-age pregnancy, he will be well-received by the committee,” said John Podesta, the White House aide who has been Foster’s shepherd through the nomination process.

But observers on both sides privately concede that Foster still faces an extraordinarily difficult struggle. There is no clear evidence that the quiet White House campaign in his behalf has swung crucial Republican support on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee in his direction.

Three GOP senators remain publicly undecided--although the White House hopes that it eventually will win the support of the two it needs to put the nomination before the full Senate. But threats by Texas Sen. Phil Gramm to filibuster the nomination still could doom it to oblivion.

“Gramm will never let it get to the floor without a major fight,” one Senate source said.

Although White House officials remain optimistic that they will be able to muster 51 votes to confirm Foster, they acknowledge that it would be almost impossible to raise the 60 votes they would need to end a filibuster.

*

“People who’ve added the math think it will be close to impossible to get him confirmed,” said one Senate source.

No one disagrees that the initial furor--primarily over abortions he had performed--inflicted terrible damage on his chances by raising questions about his veracity. Conversely, no one can be sure whether the current lull in public attention over Foster--coupled with the long delay before his confirmation hearing--will work to the nominee’s advantage or to that of his opponents.

While one source argued that the relatively long period between his nomination in February and the start of confirmation hearings will allow “level heads to prevail,” a Democratic strategist on Capitol Hill warned: “Time is never a friend if you’re a nominee.”

As with Aristide--the Haitian president deposed by a coup who spent months in Washington as the Administration sought support for his return to Haiti--Foster has spent recent weeks making unpublicized goodwill visits to key senators while White House officials work to pull in the critical Republican votes they need to secure his confirmation.

Foster also has been making selective public appearances designed to focus on his medical credentials as he participates in White House-conducted hearing rehearsals.

“This role-playing is very disconcerting for a nominee, but he’s doing quite well,” said one Administration source. “He’s a very confident guy who’s concerned that he has been misrepresented so far. He wants to set the record straight.”

The controversy over Foster’s nomination began almost as soon as he was named by Clinton to replace Dr. Joycelyn Elders, whom Clinton had fired. At first, questions arose about whether he had deliberately understated the number of abortions he performed while a physician years ago in Alabama. Although he initially numbered them as less than a dozen, he later said that he had failed to carefully check his records and acknowledged that a more accurate figure was three times that.

Questions also were raised about his performance of hysterectomies decades ago on unconsenting mentally retarded patients and whether he knew about a decades-long syphilis study that withheld treatment from black men.

The Administration has contended that the criticisms against Foster, who is black, have been fueled by conservatives beholden to anti-abortion groups. The Administration intends for Foster, if he is confirmed, to concentrate on programs to curb teen-age pregnancy.

Understandably, the Administration’s primary focus in its campaign to win confirmation has been on committee Republicans.

Sens. Bill Frist, a fellow physician and Tennessean, James M. Jeffords of Vermont and Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas are considered the critical “swing” votes.

An aide to Jeffords, who favors abortion rights, said that the senator believes the discussion about Foster “should be about qualifications, period.”

“We’re in good shape with Jeffords, we’re in pretty good shape there,” a White House official said.

Frank Boehm, head of maternal and fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a friend of Foster and an acquaintance of Frist, predicted that Frist--who opposes abortion except in certain circumstances--will support his fellow Tennessean.

“I’ve talked to him. I’ve told him it makes sense to sit back and not commit himself (until after the hearing,)” Boehm said. “But I think when it comes down to a vote, he will vote to confirm. He hasn’t told me that. But he knows how many people in this community--and in this state--want Hank to be confirmed. It’s hard for me to believe he will vote against him.”

Kassebaum, as head of the committee, must remain uncommitted, her aides said.

“Sen. Kassebaum will keep the hearing focused on Dr. Foster’s background and credentials for the job,” said Mike Horak, a spokesman for the Kansas senator. “Our philosophy is to give him a fair hearing. She intends to carefully go through the criticisms and give him an opportunity to respond to them. The hearings will be run in an appropriate and even-handed manner, although it doesn’t mean tough questions won’t be asked.”

Horak said that he expects a thorough airing of Foster’s record on abortion, the extent of his knowledge about the Tuskeegee syphilis study and a discussion about the substance of Foster’s pet project, the “I Have a Future” program.

Kassebaum “is not interested in creating a forum for those opposed to or supportive of abortion rights,” Horak said.

One Senate source suggested, however, that the question of Foster’s credibility--his seemingly contradictory recollection of how many abortions he actually performed--could become an excuse for some senators looking for a way to satisfy their anti-abortion constituents, without making abortion the issue.

“It’s a lot easier to vote against a nominee because he’s been untruthful or misleading than it is to vote against someone for performing a legal medical procedure which is supported by a large percentage of the American public,” he said.