WASHINGTON -- As a Reagan administration lawyer in 1985, Samuel Alito made clear his hope that the Supreme Court would one day overturn a landmark ruling that established abortion rights.\nAlito, now a Supreme Court nominee, argued against an all-out assault on the Roe v. Wade ruling, fearing such an assault would fail. Instead, he recommended a policy of "mitigating its effects" by trying to persuade justices to accept state regulations on abortions.\nWhile working as an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito called for the office, which represents the federal government before the Supreme Court, to help defend provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. Some of the act's provisions had been overturned by a panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Thornburgh.\nAlito wrote in the memo, released by the National Archives on Wednesday, that "no one seriously believes that the court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade."\nHe said, "By taking these cases, the court may be signaling an inclination to cut back. What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"\nAlito was nominated by President Bush on Oct. 31 as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a deciding vote in abortion cases. Alito's opponents fear that he and recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts would swing the Supreme Court to the right and lead to overturning Roe v. Wade.\nSenators say Alito has expressed "great respect" for the precedent established by the landmark abortion decision but didn't commit to upholding it in his two weeks of private meetings with them. Alito also has distanced himself from his earlier comments that there was no constitutional right to abortion, with senators saying that he has told them, "I don't give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law."\nIn 1985, Alito urged the Justice Department to attack the issue by working for limitations on abortion.
\n"I find this approach preferable to a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade," Alito wrote. "It has most of the advantages of a brief devoted to overruling of Roe v. Wade; it makes our position clear, does not even tacitly concede Roe's legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open. At the same time, it is free of many of the disadvantages that would accompany a major effort to overturn Roe."\nIf the court did not overturn Roe, "the decision would not be portrayed as a stinging rebuke," Alito said.
