Miers against abortion, longtime friend says

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers is personally opposed to abortion, her longtime companion said Tuesday, but he added that doesn’t mean she will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Nathan Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice, has been a close companion of Miers since the two first worked together for a Dallas law firm 30 years ago. His comments are the clearest indication of Miers’ view on abortion – which, as with other issues she is likely to face on the Supreme Court, is unknown.

Hecht is known as the most conservative member of the conservative Texas Supreme Court. “He’s sort of the (Antonin) Scalia of that court: smart, aggressive and very conservative,” said University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock, comparing Hecht to the outspoken Supreme Court justice.

Hecht has been a vocal opponent of the abortion right, and said in an interview Tuesday that Miers shares his views. The two attend the evangelical Valley View Christian Church near Dallas.

“Harriet goes to a church that is pro-life. She has for 25 years,” he said. “She gives them a lot of money. Her personal views lie in that direction.”

But when asked if her personal opposition to abortion would give her sufficient cause to overturn the Supreme Court’s abortion precedent, Hecht said, “I think she’ll say they won’t.”

Miers’ thin record has alarmed many conservative activists, who fear she won’t be the unwavering voice on the right that they want on the Supreme Court. But Hecht’s comments on abortion are among several pieces of evidence that have convinced many other conservatives to support President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee.

“I encourage people to connect the dots,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “Hecht is a pro-life conservative, so we take a lot of comfort from that.”

Miers gave $150 to Texans United for Life in 1989 and was a sponsor of their annual dinner that honored Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill, a leading congressional opponent of abortion.

Miers’ campaign manager in her race for the Dallas City Council in 1989, Lorlee Bartos, recalled she was surprised to learn that her candidate was opposed to abortion rights.

“I wanted her to meet with a group of pro-choice women and she said she wasn’t pro-choice,” Bartos said. “She said she had been pro-choice but had changed her view.”

Moreover, as Sekulow noted, Bush has vouched for her. “She’s shares the president’s judicial philosophy,” he said.

In Tuesday’s news conference, Bush said he did not recall discussing abortion or Roe v. Wade with his longtime lawyer. But he added:

“I made my position very clear in the course of my campaigns. I’m a pro-life president. And I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes. … And she knows exactly the kind of judge I’m looking for.”

The Supreme Court has been closely split on abortion for the past 20 years. If confirmed, Miers will replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who cast the decisive fifth vote to uphold Roe v. Wade in 1992.

Conservatives were especially upset at the time because Justice David H. Souter, a nominee of the first President Bush, joined O’Connor in the 5-4 ruling that upheld the right to abortion.

Souter, a New Hampshire judge, was dubbed the “stealth nominee” in 1990, but he fooled his Republican sponsors by joining the court’s liberal wing in upholding the church-state separation and the right to abortion and limiting the use of the death penalty.

But conservative lawyers close to the White House are convinced that Miers will not follow Souter.

“The first President Bush could not have picked David Souter out of a lineup two weeks before he picked him,” said Brad Berenson, a Washington lawyer who worked in the White House three years ago. “This President Bush worked with her (Miers) for a decade. He is relying on his own judgment and opinion.”

Supporters of abortion rights also have been uncertain about Miers because of her thin public record.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said Bush’s news conference “raised, not answered, questions for the American public about Harriet Miers. This administration and Miers have the burden of proving to the American people that she would continue Justice O’Connor’s tradition of moderation and independence.”

If conservatives fear a repeat of the Souter nomination, some liberals worry about a replay of the Clarence Thomas nomination. In his Senate testimony in 1991, he denied having a “fixed” opinion about abortion or Roe vs. Wade.

“I have no agenda. I am open about that important case,” he said. Eight months after being confirmed, he voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.