On November 27th, an armed man attacked the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic, killing three and wounding nine. He is reported to have said “no more baby parts” after his arrest, although Colorado investigators are hesitant to assign a motive.

The breakdown.

The mass shooting is only the latest attack in a string of violent assaults. Since the Supreme Court’s legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been 11 murders and 26 attempted murders of abortion providers. But since the release earlier this year of doctored videos, which accused the organization of “selling baby parts,” attacks on Planned Parenthood have increased dramatically; these attacks include arson, bombings, and shootings. (Planned Parenthood has been cleared of any wrongdoing by every state that investigated the videos.)

Planned Parenthood supporters are urging the United States Department of Justice to investigate the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism. A coalition of abortion rights groups, community organizers, and women’s health advocates has presented the Attorney General with a petition calling for the federal government to consider the surge in violence against women’s health clinics and abortion providers in the context of terrorism, and to publicly label the acts as such.

For the Federal Bureau of Investigation to consider an assault one of domestic terrorism, it must (1) involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; (2) appear intended to (a) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (b) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (c) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (3) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

In other words, domestic terrorism is a dangerous act that takes place inside the U.S. that is intended to intimidate the public or coerce government policy or conduct.

Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, argues that the attacks on the clinics have been “politically motivated, narrow in target but intended to scare a wide audience” and therefore fit the federal definition of domestic terrorism.

Rhetoric that fueled the attack.

The question of funding for Planned Parenthood has been a popular topic of debate for candidates seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, fueling rhetoric for anti-abortion activists. In light of the heated climate, Hogue claims that the attack could have been predicted.

Heidi Hess, a campaign manager at progressive advocacy group Credo Action, explains that conservative rhetoric “has dangerous real-world consequences.”

Republican candidates have targeted Planned Parenthood to rally support. Trump has stated that Republicans should threaten to shut down the government in order to cut federal aid to Planned Parenthood.

Senator Ted Cruz has called Planned Parenthood a “criminal enterprise” and has also advocated using a government shutdown to defund the women’s health organization. Cruz has been endorsed by Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an extremist anti-abortion group. Newman has personally advocated for killing those he calls “abortionists.”

When asked, Cruz refused to call the shooting an act of domestic terrorism, calling it “murder” by a “deranged individual” instead.

Jessica Valenti, columnist for the Guardian, cites conservative rhetoric as the cause of the shooting. She writes, “[the shooting] was also the predictable result of a culture that demonizes abortion, uses fantastical and false rhetoric about Planned Parenthood and allows politicians and activists to make false representations about women’s reproductive health.”

The language used by anti-abortionists dehumanizes the women who use Planned Parenthood. It turns them into baby-killing monsters, murderers who deserve nothing better than to be murdered themselves. After the attack, some pro-lifers cheered the shooter on Twitter as a brave hero, and praised him as the karma the victims deserved. (Never mind that none of the victims were there for an abortion, or that only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s expenses are spent toward abortion.)

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has called the shooting a “crime against women” getting care at Planned Parenthood.

Laura Leavitt, a campaign manager at Courage Campaign, a California-based grassroots organizer, has said that calling the attacks on health clinics “anything less than terrorism is a huge slap in the face to women and a danger to us all.”

Valenti concludes, “We know why this happened…Because of hate, because of lies, and because words matter.”

Why the label of “domestic terrorism” matters.

The debate of whether or not to label the attack an act of domestic terrorism is more than semantics.

As Richard Vatz, professor and rhetoric expert at Towson University, explains, “Domestic terrorism has more of a punch, more power,” though he cautions that the term should not be used for political power.

However, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is known for his firm stance against abortion, was not afraid to denounce the tragedy as “domestic terrorism, especially for those of us in the pro-life movement.”

Unfortunately, because domestic terrorism has no all-encompassing statute, charges can vary. Federal prosecutors usually turn to other statutes to cover the offenses. Yet while the charge of domestic terrorism may not result in heavy fines, it serves a symbolic importance. Hogue believes that labeling the attack as domestic terrorism will counter the gunman’s attempt to intimidate women from seeking services at clinics like Planned Parenthood. She also believes that invoking the term “terrorism” will force federal agencies to get involved.

Heidi Beirich, director of the intelligence project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said of the debate, “I think it’s very important for the government to call a terrorist, a terrorist. I think a reluctance to do that is a terrible thing.”