WASHINGTON -- A disclosure that Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers expressed staunch anti-abortion views in a 1989 questionnaire intensified the roiling Capitol Hill debate about her beliefs yesterday after the questionnaire was released to Senate Judiciary Committee members.

	Harriet E. Miers

The document -- a survey that Ms. Miers filled out at the request of Texans United for Life while she was a candidate for the Dallas City Council some 15 years ago -- accompanied the release of her first set of written responses to questions from judiciary panel members about her legal experience, judicial philosophy and positions she has taken on political issues throughout her career.

But senators focused not on those lengthier and more recent answers, but instead on the 1989 document -- largely because there has been so much confusion about Ms. Miers' views on privacy rights and abortion since she was nominated by President B;ush to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In the 1989 document, Ms. Miers checked "yes" in answer to a question about whether she would "actively support" a proposed constitutional amendment barring abortion except when the life of the mother is threatened. She also said she would oppose use of public money for abortion except when necessary to prevent the death of the mother and that she would use her influence as an elected official to "promote the pro-life cause."

		More on the Miers nomination Abortion questionnaire by Texas interest group to Miers in 1989 Senate Judiciary questionnaire Financial disclosure Financial statement

The questionnaire gained even more significance late in the day, when White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters in an e-mail that President Bush "was informed of the views ... expressed as a candidate for public office back in the late '80s" during the vetting process for her nomination.

Mr. McClellan added that Mr. Bush "did not discuss with [her] or anyone else whether or not those were still her views."

Several conservative senators who have expressed skepticism about Ms. Miers' nomination yesterday welcomed the revelation.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said it was "comforting to get a little better idea of where she stands on the issue," and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said he was growing more comfortable with the Miers nomination. A spokesman for Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said Mr. Santorum had not yet had a chance to review the questionnaire.

No Republican senator has publicly said he or she plans to oppose Ms. Miers, even though some conservative activists have continued to call upon the president to withdraw her name.Judiciary Committee supporters of abortion rights, including Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman, said the 1989 questionnaire raised new questions that his panel would ask Ms. Miers during the upcoming hearings. Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York described the document as troubling.

Mr. Specter's understanding of Ms. Miers' views on privacy rights was already clouded by an apparent miscommunication in their nearly two-hour meeting Monday. The senator initially told reporters that Ms. Miers had said she endorsed two landmark privacy cases that laid a foundation for the Roe v. Wade case upholding the right to an abortion. But after seeing his comments in a wire report Monday night, Ms. Miers called the senator to advise him that he had been mistaken and that she had not specified her views on one of those cases.

Yesterday, Mr. Specter that the confusion had made it even more important to start the hearings soon. He said he planned to lead off the questioning by asking her about abortion rights and specifically about what she had said in their joint conversation.

In her answers to the committee's questions, Ms. Miers stressed that the judiciary had a limited role. "The independence of the courts provides no license to be freewheeling," she wrote. "Courts are to be arbiters of disputes, not policy makers."

Ms. Miers, who was a lawyer in private practice from 1972 to 2001 at the Dallas firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp, noted that she specialized in commercial litigation and has represented clients ranging from multibillion-dollar international corporations such as Disney Enterprises Inc. and Microsoft Corp. to individuals. She said her legal practice taught her to the importance of stability in the law.

"Judicial activism can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis," she wrote, referring to the Latin doctrine that judges should stand by rulings from cases previously decided. "Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it."

She discussed in detail some cases she had worked on in private practice and noted that, as counsel to the president -- the White House post she has held since last February -- she has regularly advised Mr. Bush about constitutional issues.But there were a number of notable omissions in her questionnaire reply, particularly related to her nearly five years in the Bush administration. She chose not to address any White House work in response to a query asking that she produce any reports, memoranda or policy statements prepared or produced with her participation in connection with "any public office" she had held.

That sparked frustration among Democratic senators, who said they would pursue documents from her White House tenure.

"So far, these answers heighten -- rather than lessen --concerns about whether, as a Supreme Court justice, she would be able to maintain independence from this administration and future administrations," said Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the judiciary panel's ranking Democrat.

In the questionnaire's financial disclosure section, Ms. Miers reported a net worth of about $675,000. She listed $1.25 million in total assets -- predominantly from her ownership of homes in Virginia and Texas -- and liabilities totaling $573,000, most of which is for two mortgages on her homes. The home in Texas is valued at nearly $688,000, and she said her Virginia home is worth nearly $295,000.