Yes. During the war crime trials that followed WWII, not everyone who committed crimes was tried for them. Only the worst of the worst were brought to trial for what they had done.
In fact, most of the war crimes were simply overlooked out of political expediency and the fact that it would likely have involved executions on a massive scale. I think we’re in a very similar situation. The medical staff who enable this and the political organizers who made the murder of 50 million children possible need to be held accountable for what they have done. I think the appropriate charge would be for crimes against humanity.
If we are given the responsibility to write the abortion legislation tomorrow, I believe we, too, should offer amnesty to all "mothers" who committed one for a variety of reasons: they were told it's a right, some of them have extenuating circumstances, and it is not expedient to prosecute. I also think that we should be careful not to create a climate when people's pregnancies are inspected by some kind of abortion prevention gestapo, as on some level the privacy concern does become valid.
However, the pro-life agenda should not have the overwhelming focus on abortion providers. The fundamental crime is committed by "mothers". Clemency is fine, placing them among the victims muddles the message.
The war crime analogy has its limits. Germany was in a war, so to draw distinctions between legitimate yet lethal work of a soldier, and a war crime is difficult, especially for the victorious side. Those guilty of an abortion today are not under orders; each such act is ipso facto a crime.