And that brings us to a second line of defense for the pro-life movement — that it can’t be held responsible for the acts of a handful of impatient radicals who take matters into their own hands.

That sounds sensible — at least until we reflect on how we tend to apportion blame to Salafist imams who rail against the myriad injustices perpetrated by the decadent, secular West. When one of their followers turns to terrorism, we don’t hesitate to hold the cleric at least partially responsible, even if he never explicitly advocated violence. That’s because we understand perfectly well how such rhetoric works — inciting acts of brutality by whipping up righteous indignation.

When members of the pro-life movement deny that they intend their rhetoric to have an analogous effect, I believe them. But that just makes me think they’re being horribly naïve.

Or perhaps that they don’t fully believe what they’re saying when they talk about American killing fields, the relentless and senseless slaughter of babies, and millions of murdered human beings.