I put "activists" in quotes because there is a point at which activism becomes terrorism. There are many laws in this country that I would like to see changed, and practices that I would like to see abolished, but I would not support the use of violence or physical intimidation to achieve those goals. This success on the part of anti-choice terrorists is part of what Liss has called "a decades-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and abortion seekers."I felt I had to reach out to the Shakesville community on this topic in part because I don't know how to talk to people in my local community about it. Upon finishing the article, I had to share my anger and frustration with someone—I had the urge to wave the newspaper in the air and exclaim to the people all around me, "Can you BELIEVE this?!"—but I was worried that if I brought it up with my classmates or professor, the discussion would be clouded by debate over the legitimacy of the procedure itself.(Which underscores how even the nature of the abortion debate has turned into a silencing tactic designed to intimidate people who don't want to debate the ethics of abortion.)The legitimacy and/or legality of the procedure is not the issue here, for me; I understand both sides of that issue. The issue for me is why any compassionate person, no matter what they believe about abortion in general, and second-trimester abortions in particular, would fail to agree that we need a society in which people can make decisions for themselves and for their health without fear of violent repercussions—and that our medical professionals must be able to make decisions about what services to offer without having to worry whether the safety and privacy of their patients will be compromised by terrorists.