Actually, if they were in any way honest about their motives, a lot of causes would take precedence over abortion for them. (E.g., as you might know, America’s infant mortality rate is a national disgrace; they’d be on it like white on rice if they weren’t lying through their teeth about why they’re anti-abortion.)
That’s why the term “pro-life” is so insidious. It’s marketing, plain and simple. They can’t exactly come out and say they their only concern is punishing women for having sex , even though that’s obviously where they’re coming from.
They insist that everyone call them by this BS phrase because it encourages people to glide right past the two slices of utter baloney on which the anti-choice camp absolutely depends on putting over:
(a) Their lies about motives; and
(b) The pretense that “life”–in quotes because they use it in such an abstract sense as to have no practical meaning whatever–beginning at conception is something other than a convenient (to them) dogma with no scientific support.
Calling them “pro-life” implies that you accept both their claims about motive and their premise about “life.”
 And could there be anything more anti-life than viewing birth and babies as a punishment, for anything? But that’s clearly their view.