Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 9, 1995 TAG: 9503100023
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-16 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Foster, a Tennessee physician whose work in reducing unintended teen pregnancies earned him recognition by the Bush administration as one of America's ``Points of Light,'' has admitted that he has performed therapeutic abortions during his career.
How many? One, as Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., said she was initially told by the White House? Fewer than a dozen, as Foster declared after anti-abortion groups got on his case? Or ``probably near 700,'' as a disputed transcript from an ethics advisory-board meeting purports was once Foster's statement, but which he vehemently denies?
One or 700, it should make no difference to those who believe that abortion, under any circumstances, is murder. One or 700 may make no difference to pro-abortion-rights activists, either.
But a large number of abortions may trouble some Americans uncomfortable with the large number of abortions performed in our country. And, more to the point, a changing number evokes questions of credibility and competence.
At this point, it appears Clinton did not know about the transcript when he nominated Foster - an individual he had hoped would be less controversial than the outspoken Joycelyn Elders he recently fired. But Clinton should have known. Had his administration done a thorough background check, surely it could have turned up the ethics-board transcript as easily as did anti-abortion groups.
Since Foster denies he ever made the statement - and indeed the quote may have been ``garbled'' or purposely twisted as the White House is now attempting to show - Clinton might still have chosen Foster. But he'd be in much better position to defend the doctor, and himself against suspicions of cover-up and accusations of yet another screw-up.
The president, with a track record of botched nominations, has botched another. But, barring further disclosures that cast doubt on Foster's credibility or credentials, Clinton should unequivocally support him.
By all accounts, Foster is a good doctor well-qualified for the surgeon general's post. Someone with his experience in fighting teen pregnancy could prove a great asset for the nation. And, however many abortions he has performed (or simply overseen), they were legal procedures.
Clinton has no chance of winning on this one with the anti-abortion forces and his enemies, even if he would dump Foster now. But the president might at least salvage some respect he's lost in the past by so often, when foes have turned up the heat, backing away from beliefs and nominees.
Meanwhile, isn't it time Clinton fixed his appointments procedure?
by CNB