In the WaPo column by Ruth Marcus mentioned in the Assorted Links this morning, what is most noticeable is what isn’t in the column. Marcus goes to great length to appear fair and balanced by noting three “fallacies”, two by pro-lifers and one by pro-choicers, and therefore moderate. She concludes by appearing to be less fanatical about abortion than she really is by saying that it is important to get health care reform enacted, regardless of whether abortion is funded or not. But what she doesn’t say is that abortion advocates can always get abortion funding added after the health care system is comprehensively overhauled. The new health care system will not be static, it will not never be amended. Marcus knows that. Pro-abortion advocates will fight tooth and nail to prevent any limitation on abortion, but other liberals can be tactical. Marcus is being tactical, in the same way that the New York Times reported two weeks ago that Nancy Pelosi was in allowing the Stupak amendment vote in the first place: change health care now, change abortion funding later. The lesson is simple: get government more involved in the delivery of heatlh care services and government will get more involved in abortion.

Oswald Clark is the economics reporter for The Interim and an Ottawa and Boston based economist.