It's an interesting, but academic question whether parents in the past who beat their kids, or smacked them, according to social norms, with their best interests at heart, were abusers. I don't think the answer is by any means settled.
Maybe a more useful academic exercise would be to say, if five years from now we find that kids who received the COVID vaccine are at serious risk of some negative outcome, would we say that parents who had followed the advice to vaccinate, were in fact abusers? Or parents who encouraged kids to mask, if that were later shown to lead to some problem?
What if there was a period when the science started to suggest there could be a problem, but much of the dominant social rhetoric claimed that was a conspiracy theory, and local doctors seemed to be quiet about it, or even to agree that it is misinformation? If a parent trying to navigate that followed what had been the dominant narrative and perhaps still was in some circles, with the best of intentions, are they abusers?
What's the purpose, the supposed benefit, of accusing the individual parent in such a case, where you know almost nothing about the actual situation in that family or what has happened, of being an abuser?
There is none. It's either to make yourself feel good by being righteous, or by being cruel - to a family that may well have to face the bad results of making the wrong choice. It's much less effective at convincing anyone than addressing the real pushers of the ideology in schools, the media, and health services would be.