A few years ago, I gave a speech on abortion. It was a personal speech–even an autobiographical speech. It told of how I arrived at an anti-abortion position, when I was in my late teens or early 20s. There were waymarks on this journey (although journey is probably too grand or pompous a word). What I mean is, there were events, thoughts, articles: things that led me to my position.

I remember one summer when I was a camp counselor in Elgin, Ill. This was Camp Watagamie, aka Camp Want My Mommy. I read the Chicago Tribune, like a fiend. And there was this story of a man–a father–who had smothered his baby with a pillow 45 minutes after the baby was born. The baby had been born with some defect. And the man was charged with manslaughter.

A columnist–I can’t be sure of his name–pointed out that, if the baby had been “taken care of” a little earlier, that would have been an abortion, and perfectly fine. But this man was being charged with manslaughter–and did the 45 minutes make all that much difference?

I was reminded of this when I read about another case, here. A woman named Sycloria Williams went for an abortion outside Miami. She was almost six months pregnant, and she paid $1,200. At the appointed hour, she was in the chair, ready to go. But something went wrong: She delivered a baby girl. The doctor had not yet arrived; he was late.

I now quote the Associated Press: “What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out. Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.”

Williams is now suing the doctor (for arriving late, I suppose). Her lawyer said, “I don’t care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community.” I wonder what the lawyer’s problem is. I wonder what Williams’s is, too. She went for an abortion; she wanted the baby gone–and the baby got gone, one way or the other.

Did you notice a particular line from the AP report? The case “has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate.” But why? Does five minutes make all that much difference–or 45, or an hour, or whatever? Is the moral gap that great? One minute, the baby is a “fetus,” and perfectly abortable; the next minute, he is a “baby,” and off-limits.

The gruesome cases make you think a little harder. But, of course, they’re all gruesome–some are just less seen than others. Sycloria Williams was shaken up on seeing her baby. The baby’s death was very messy–visible to those who were around. But the baby’s death was going to be pretty bad, anyway–just behind the curtain, so to speak. All nice ’n’ clinical.

The lawyer said, “She came face to face with a human being. And that changed everything.” Yeah, but why? The baby existed–same size, as a matter of fact–before it emerged from the womb. Williams had gone to the clinic to be rid of it. Afterward, she even named the baby (Shanice). Oh, cripe. You go in to get rid of your baby, then you catch sight of it and get all gooey? And the rest of us are supposed to go “Awww”? And penalize the doctor who did not quite get there in time?

Why not penalize you for scheduling the procedure in the first place? You’re the one who asked him; this is not Communist China, you know.

Perhaps abortion is too big and important a subject to bring up in this “breezy lil’ web column,” as I’ve called it for the eight years of its life. Abortion is too big for an “impromptu.” But the Miami case reminded me of that Chicago case, all those years ago–and the formation of my own abortion position. I grew up in a culture where abortion was regarded, not only as a right, but as a good. It represented female liberation–“choice” and all that. “A woman has a right over her own body.” (True. But, in a pregnancy, is another body involved?) “Hands off my uterus!” “A baby in its mother’s womb has no more standing than a hamburger in her stomach.” Etc., etc.

That was part of the music in Ann Arbor, Mich., when I was coming of age. I found I could not go along with it.

‐Friends, I hope you have your new issue of National Review. In digital form, it is here. The issue is chockfull of journalistic goodness, if I may say–from Rob Long and David Kahane on Hollywood, to Steve Hayward and Mark Steyn on Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is also Hollywood, in a way).

My own contribution is a piece on Harry Reid, the majority leader in the Senate. Interesting man. He came from very tough circumstances in Searchlight, Nev. Father an alcoholic, abusive miner; later committed suicide. A mother who took in laundry from the bordello. Harry, as a youngster, hitchhiked 40 miles to school. He boxed, he fell in love with politics–another form of boxing, you might say.

In sum, Reid is an American type, and admirable in many respects.

Of course, he does not have much use for Republicans: He thinks we’re a pretty callous and unfriendly lot. I talked to several Republican senators for this piece; several of their staffers, too. I was not able to talk to Senator Reid, unfortunately, because he declined. Too bad, for a number of reasons: Maybe I flatter myself–or misjudge Reid–but I think he would rather have liked our conversation, our interview. And I think I would have gotten some excellent answers.

Want to know what I would have asked him–what I would like to ask him even now? I’ll give you a sample.

1. Do you really think that Republicans are people who don’t care about people (as you’ve said)?

2. Giving an interview that touched on your Mormonism, you said that Democrats make better members of the church than Republicans. Could you elaborate?

3. Many Republicans think that you have slid way to the left since becoming Democratic leader–that you are no longer moderate or compromise-minded. Are they right?

4. In 2010, when you are up again, Republicans will try to knock you off, à la your predecessor, Daschle. They say you have slid to the left of Nevada. Will you be ready?

5. How would you like the Iraq War to conclude? Do you think it’s impossible for the U.S. to prevail there? Have you changed your mind about the surge’s being a failure?

6. You predicted that Democrats would gain seats in the Senate because of the Iraq War. Is that what happened last November?

7. Clarence Thomas: Have you read his opinions, and, if so, do you still think they are “poorly written,” and that the justice is an “embarrassment”?

8. What is your position on gay marriage?

9. Why are English-language measures “racist”?

10. Do you believe that DailyKos and MoveOn.org are forces for good in American life?

11. Do you think that you misunderstood Rush Limbaugh when he made his blast against “phony soldiers”?

12. Do you still think that Fox News is unworthy of holding a presidential debate?

13. Do you think that Ronald Reagan was generally harmful or generally helpful to America and the world?

14. Do you believe that bigger government is better for America? Relatedly, do you think that the current financial crisis should be seized to reshape the country fundamentally, to make it more government-centered?

Ah, well. The number of unposed questions I have–for a great many people–could fill libraries! Maybe next time . . .

‐In my opinion, you should pay attention to what’s happening in China, every once in a while–even if you don’t want to. And who does, really? Consider one report–a typical report–from Human Rights in China. It is headlined “Elderly Activist Shuang Shuying Released; Reports Abuses in Prison.” It reads:

Shuang Shuying, 77, evictions activist and mother of house church pastor Hua Huiqi, was released from the Beijing Women’s Prison on Sunday morning, February 8, 2009. In an interview with HRIC on the day of her release, Shuang recounted the abuses she suffered in prison.
Shuang served a full two-year term on conviction of “intentional damage of public and private property” for striking an on-coming police car with a cane during a 2007 visit to a local government office to protest her son’s detention.
On the afternoon of her release, Shuang went to visit her ailing husband, Hua Zaichen, 89, hospitalized at the Beijing Electricity Hospital since February 5. Hua passed away at 7:50am the following morning, February 9, 2009.
Shuang and her family are longtime rights activists. She and her husband have spoken out against Reeducation-Through-Labor (RTL) and religious persecution. Their son, Hua Huiqi, has suffered numerous detentions, beatings, and threats for his activities as a house church pastor. In 2002, Shuang saw her Beijing home demolished to make way for Olympics redevelopment. Subsequently, the family had to relocate eight times.
At Beijing Women’s Prison, Shuang was the oldest inmate, and endured beatings and electric shock. She suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure, cataracts, heart disease, and arthritis, but prison authorities denied her request for medical parole. According to her husband in 2008, Shuang was almost completely blind in both eyes due to the abuses inflicted upon her.

And so on and so forth. If you’d like the full report, please go here.

A lot of us grew up with the RFK bromide about how a society should be judged on how it treats its elderly, etc. The Chinese government is appalling and wicked, to all sorts of people, including the elderly. (Shuang might have been lucky that her eyes were too bad to get harvested.) Why does the world care so little? Why is the first priority of virtually every government, organization, and person to kiss the behind of the PRC? An ongoing vexation . . .

‐Care for a little media criticism? It comes courtesy of my colleague Fred Schwarz. Last month, The Economist had a story about corruption in Italy’s Democratic party (a leftist bunch). The article was headed “Scuola di scandolo: A sad lesson that scandal is not the preserve of the right.”

Get that subhead! As Fred says, “you can almost defend the wording as being simply clumsy.” What the magazine means is, “Everyone knows that Berlusconi is corrupt, but now it seems his opponents are too, and isn’t that sad?” But if that is the case, why not simply say, “A sad lesson that scandal is pervasive”? (I am again making Fred’s points.) And isn’t corruption the assumption in Italian politics? Plus, when you read the story, you come across passages such as this:

“Italy’s centre-left may be a bit dull and worthy [?], and somewhat tarnished by the communist past of many of its leaders (including Mr Veltroni). But, give or take a rotten apple, it has always seemed fundamentally honest.”

I quote Mr. Schwarz: “How disillusioning that a bunch of ex-Communists (and we’re not talking 1945 or 1975 or even 1989, but 1998, for goodness’ sake, before they finally got a clue) would turn out to be corrupt instead of ‘fundamentally honest’! Sad indeed.”

Yep–so sad.

‐Here is something un-sad, I hope: If you care for Impromptus via RSS, go here.

#JAYBOOK#

‐Got something kind of strange to report to you: A few months ago, I wrote a column about Republicans in the Bay Area who keep their Republicanism quiet–who are in the closet, politically. And I entitled it “GOP life on the down low.”

And several people wrote me to say, “Jay, don’t you know that that’s an expression for living a life of closeted homosexuality?” Well, of course I do: Why would I have chosen that title otherwise? These Republicans are closeted (politically). In the closet, on the down low. I would have thought that understandable by all.

But no. Last week, someone forwarded me an item from The Huffington Post. It said, “Annals of Unfortunate Headlines.” It further said, “Spencer Ackerman reports on news that you probably already know: namely, that Jay Nordlinger and his crew at the National Review should spend some more time perusing the Urban Dictionary, or at the very least, the Wikipedia.”

I swear, sometimes I don’t understand people. They can be so dense. And yet they fancy themselves so sophisticated! Doesn’t The Huffington Post know what it’s like to be a conservative in intolerant-Left environments? Conservatives frequently use the language of “the closet”: “Is he out yet?” “No, no one knows he’s conservative–so don’t tell anyone.”

Virtually every day, I get letters from academics and artists–especially musicians–that say, “Don’t out me, but . . .” A conservative academic will say, “I’m still in the closet, because I don’t have tenure. But, once I do, I’ll come out, and brave all storms.” Etc.

Anyway . . .

Sorry to end on a negative note, y’all! (But you’ll agree it’s not as negative as the one I began on.) Thanks much, and see you soon.