They are coming clean on how meaningless his evasive 2003 testimony was. It's now even clearer than before that the far-right activists who've been turning handsprings in celebration of Roberts's nomination are getting exactly what they wanted: a proven activist opponent of personal freedoms like a woman's right to choose.

While Roberts wanted to give the impression he respected the right to privacy and the precedent of Roe vs. Wade, his answers look dangerously similar to the responses (Associate Justice) Clarence Thomas gave senators during his confirmation hearings 14 years ago.

This will be a defining moment -- President Bush has to pick between what mainstream America wants and what the radical right demands. He can make good on his promises to unite the country by reaching out across party lines to find a consensus nominee who'll respect privacy rights, value women's freedom and defend constitutional traditions.

I hope President Bush will spare the country the divisiveness of a controversial nomination for such an important office. But if that's the route he chooses, pro-choice Americans are ready for the fight.

We're not suggesting that Mr. Roberts condones clinic violence.

I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting that Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. I know he said he finds bombing and murder abhorrent, but still, his ideological views of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue in support of someone like Michael Bray who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.

We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record.

He still must answer this vital question directly.