"As in, abortion clinic protesters are getting a bad rap, being called terrorists?"
I wondered the same when I read it - that was my first reading of it. I'm not taking a position on it, only saying that it seems to be open to that interpretation.
Well, it's in the context of "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."
Which, by the way, is a stylistic atrocity that hurts my inner ear as well as a moral atrocity.
Note the way she splits the infinitive with a couple of words, and then proceeds to split another infinitive with no less than twelve words. But apparently that second split infinitive bothered her at some unconscious level, so she used the word "to" twice, thus commiting a grammatical solecisim, "or to . . . to decide."
I grant that it's hard to know what side she's on, because her style here is so damned vague, fuzzy, and overblown.
It's possible, but put it into context with the rest of what she said. She may not consider them terrorists, but at the very least she tells us women should have the "right to choose"...
Good point, as in e.g. "what a terrible time we live in, when abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists." It changes the whole picture, doesn't it? I'm not saying that's the context, but AM saying that context does matter.
I read it that way too, that it was written from an attempted objective viewpoint. The problem is, all of her writing I've seen so far has either leaned left or was written with her sitting on the fence.
She seems to want to be liked, not necessarily known for taking tough stands.