But the liberal lunacy peaked when Angry Mouse labeled grandmas who pass out pamphlets outside abortion clinics as terrorists.
A distinction is often made between the violent and non-violent members of this "movement." The government, the media, and the activists are careful to point out that the Scott Roeders and Paul Hills of the world are rare. Most of the activists just want to "inform" women about their options. Most of the activists care about preserving all life, including the lives of the providers and women.
The little old lady who sits outside an abortion clinic, handing out fliers to young frightened women, full of deliberately misleading or outright fabricated information -- she's not doing any harm, is she? She's not like the Army of God, which advocates murdering abortion providers, calls these murderers "American Heroes," and has even circulated a how-to manual.
But grandma, with her pamphlets and her signs? Certainly she's not a terrorist.
Common sense dictates that there is a major, MAJOR difference between blowing up an abortion clinic and peacefully protesting outside one.
Does common sense stop Angry Mouse from spewing her polemic? Oh no! It gets worse.
The law doesn't consider grandma a terrorist. Because even though she is trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, her method of intimidation is legal. She has a First Amendment right to stand outside a health clinic and try to persuade patients not to enter. She has a right to hand out brochures filled with lies so patients will be "informed." She has a right to carry graphic signs, to call the patients "baby killers," to tell them they will burn in hell. Freedom of speech, after all.
Someone should tell the pro-choice crowd that "choice" is a two-way street. Not only do women have a choice to have an abortion, but they also have a choice NOT to have an abortion. Persuading women not to have an abortion is not terrorism.
Now, yes, pro-life protesters can get out-of-hand (i.e.: blocking the doors to the clinic, threatening to kill women who get abortions, etc.), and certainly such protesters are not protected by the First Amendment. Otherwise, protesting outside abortion clinics is perfectly legal and is in no sense applicable to terrorism.
And if her words and deeds and false information succeed in their purpose of intimidation and coercion? What will become of the woman grandma has "counseled"? Will she choose to take her chances in the privacy of her own home by drinking bleach? Will she throw herself down the stairs? Will she become another nameless statistic?
So, because a woman has been convinced not to have an abortion at a clinic, the only alternative is to have an abortion at home or to commit suicide? Non-sequitur argument?
If this movement is successful, more women will die. That’s not hyperbole. That's a fact. And while even the supposedly non-violent activists claim they are concerned with preserving life, they cannot justify those deaths (of women who needed abortions).
By Angry Mouse's insane logic, she would be conisdered a terrorist if a pro-choice activist read her article and decided to maul a few pro-life protesters at the local abortion clinic.
But I guess if people protesting Obama can be labled "racists" and "tebagging rednecks," then people protesting abortion can be labeled "terrorists."