
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, July 31, 1990                   TAG: 9007310255
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Short

1976 SOUTER BRIEF RAISES SUSPICIONS

As New Hampshire's attorney general in 1976, Supreme Court nominee David Souter submitted a brief to a federal appeals court urging that the state not be required to pay for abortions because many taxpayers find it "morally offensive . . . to finance the killing of unborn children."

The 14-year-old legal brief was viewed suspiciously by abortion rights advocates. But it is unclear how much the brief reflects the personal opinion of Souter since he did not write it and since the attorney general is often called upon to advocate policy decisions determined by the governor.

The language of the state brief "suggests a clear sympathy with the anti-abortion viewpoint," said officials of People for the American Way, the liberal advocacy group that turned up the legal documents among federal court records.

But abortion foes argued the brief reveals little, other than the state's position on the abortion-funding issue.

"I don't think you can infer anything at all from this about Souter," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "Judge Souter probably never even saw this document."

Johnson added, however, that his group is "fairly comfortable with (Souter's) overall approach to the law," and believes that he will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling legalizing abortion nationwide.

But while the brief did not offer clear evidence of Souter's stance, it did show he brushed up against the most divisive issue before the Supreme Court and the nation.

by CNB