By this point, the refrain should sound familiar: once again, a Clinton nominees is in trouble. And once again, the White House is at fault.

When President Clinton announced Dr. Henry W. Foster Jr.'s nomination for Surgeon-General last week, the doctor's credentials seemed impeccable: an obstetrician/gynecologist for 30 years, he has delivered more than 10,000 babies and carries the endorsement of the American Medical Association (AMA).

A few days after the nomination, however, it came out that Foster had performed abortions--fewer than a dozen, he said. That in itself drew criticism from key Republican figures such as Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

"I'm...troubled by the fact that we were not given that information before the nomination was set up," Dole said Sunday.

On Monday, as anti-abortion groups got into the fray, the statistics became larger and the denials more vehement. The groups released a transcript of a 1978 hearing at which Foster was quoted as saying, "I have done a lot of amniocentesis and therapeutic abortions, probably near 700," Foster denied the statement.

The numbers game continued Wednesday, when Foster appeared on ABC's "Nightline" and said that, after carefully checking his records, he had performed 39 abortions in his life--a far cry from "less than a dozen."

How did a doctor supported by the AMA, a man who piloted a program to help teenagers avoid unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, an obstetrician with 30 years of experience, draw so much fire so quickly?

The problem only marginally relates to abortion. Any nominee Clinton selected who had performed even one abortion would have been assailed by Religious Right organizations such as the Christian Coalition and the National Clergy Council, but that is to be expected. Rep. Nita Lowey, chair of the House Pro-Choice Task Force, was correct when she said in a news conference this week that "the idea that performing a legal, medical procedure could even possible disqualify Dr. Foster is an outrage," but it is certainly understandable that anti-abortion groups might subscribe to that idea.

What is far less understandable, however, is the White House's poor handling of the nomination. By slipping in only after announcing the nomination the fact that Foster had performed abortions--and by not giving a definite numbers--the White House made it look as though it of Foster had something to hide.

As Senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said yesterday, "I think there's a litmus test here, but it's not abortion. And the litmus test is truth. At this point the president and Dr. Foster's versions of the truth seem to be changing every day."

Clinton should have said from the beginning that Foster had performed a certain number of abortions in his 30 years of service. Had he done that, at least the facts would have been laid out clearly.

With secrecy or without it, the antiabortion groups will protest. If the White House had told Foster to double-check his abortion records before the nomination was announced, the anti-abortion groups would still protest about the abortions he performed, but at least they wouldn't complain they were being lied to.

Because the White House was not forthcoming from the start, Foster's character and veracity are now being dragged into the debate. Friends who supported him at first are now more cautious in their statements. And Clinton did not help Monday when he hesitantly said that he would continue to back-Foster "if the facts are as I understand them to be."

With Fosters decades of experience, pro-choice stance and track record of preventing teenage pregnancy, he would be an ideal choice to fill the spot Jocelyn Elders left empty when she resigned under pressure in December due to another white House gaffe. He may never get the chance, however, because of mixed messages from a White House that can't get its act together.

Sarah J. Schaffer's column appears on alternate Fridays.