Ruth Marcus (and many others) repeat tired and wrong line about pro-life "hypocrisy" (UPDATED)

I've blogged many times over the years in response to a claim that is often tossed around but is no less irritating, and no more persuasive, for its familiarity, i.e., that it's "hypocritical" of pro-life people to not support "murder" prosecutions of women who undergo abortions. This piece, by Ruth Marcus, is just the latest.  For writers even a little bit familiar with the basics of Criminal Law, or who are willing to do just a little bit of research into the history of abortion regulation and abortion-related prosecutions, the claim is easy to debunk (and, therefore, should not be so often lobbed by otherwise well-informed writers).

UPDATE:  Mark Silk makes, I think, a similar mistake in this piece.  He says:

The obvious truth in this case has to do with the pro-life position that abortion is murder. For if that’s the case, how can a woman who voluntarily obtains one not incur some criminal liability?

What's "obvious," though, is that "murder" is a legal term of art -- one that has long reflected fine-grained distinctions regarding the state-of-mind of a person who causes another person's death.  It is utterly unremarkable and completely common for the law to treat some homicides as non-criminal wrongs.  And, it's neither "hypocritical" nor (in Silk's words) a "lie" for pro-lifers to endorse a legal approach to the particular and complicated wrong that is abortion that deals with some contributors to the wrong (e.g., the doctor, the pharmacist, etc.) using the criminal-law method and with other contributors in other ways. 

For more, here's Robby George; here's Charlie Camosy; and here is Kathryn Lopez (with links to many others).