DHS Memo Worries About Violence From Both Sides Over Roe

Right, right, “both sides”

Internal DHS memo warns about threats from extremists on both sides of abortion issue after Roe v. Wade leak

An internal Department of Homeland Security memo warns about rising threats from abortion rights extremists on both sides after the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, according to a copy of the memo obtained Wednesday by NBC News.

Axios was the first to report on the details of the memo, which DHS issued last Friday.

Since the draft opinion was published on May 2, the National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Consortium has identified at least 25 violent threats on social media that were referred to law enforcement agencies for further investigation, according to the memo from DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

“Some of these threats discussed burning down or storming the U.S. Supreme Court and murdering Justices and their clerks, members of Congress, and lawful demonstrators,” the memo said.

Well, that sure sounds like both sides, right? No? The unhinged abortion on demand supporters? Huh

The authors also noted several social media accounts that encouraged violence at abortion rights rallies by sharing images and comments of vehicles ramming into lawful protesters.

Well, that could be both sides, but, I’d bet that most referred to the Democrat side.

In response to reports about the memo, a DHS spokesperson said, “DHS is committed to protecting Americans’ freedom of speech and other civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to peacefully protest. DHS is also committed to working with our partners across every level of government and the private sector to share timely information and intelligence, prevent all forms of violence, and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe.”

Sounds like they were spying on the communications of citizens. Granted, there isn’t a need for a warrant to cruise Twitter, Facebook, and others. Where was the DHS when the Mostly Peaceful Protesters were rioting, looting, and burning down businesses?

The Axios piece doesn’t really delve into the details, but, of course, tries to put most of the blame on the anti-abortion supporters (let’s be honest, they have committed violence against abortion facilities and abortion doctors), but, really why would the anti-abortion crowd start violence if the Court gets rid of Roe? Any violence will come from the abortion crowd. The idea here is to set the narrative to Blame the anti-abortion folks for the violence from the baby killers.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

33 Responses to “DHS Memo Worries About Violence From Both Sides Over Roe”

  1. Why would the Department of Fatherland Security be worried about violence from pro-life supporters of the expected decision to throw the Roe v Wade decision into the same garbage cans in which 63 unborn children’s bodies had been discarded? After all, the pro-life movement finally won!

    No, the only violence from the pro-life people will be if they have to defend themselves from attacks by the pro-preborn infanticide demonstrators. That, I expect, will happen.

    • The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Pro-Birth Dana is likely right.

      Americans never respond well when a right is taken away. For 50 years Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land, with women having the right to an abortion with significant limits after the first 12 weeks of gestation (1st trimester).

      If the Supreme Court were to rule that the 2nd Amendment does NOT cover semi-auto weapons and states can ban them ad libitum it’s possible gun fetishists might not respond well. Or would they respond “state’s rights”?

      When does a conceptus become a person?

      • CarolAnn says:

        When does a conceptus become a person?

        Immediately. Being a person and having all Constitutional rights are two different questions. All people have the right to life though, even the ones too young to vote.

        • Elwood P. dOwd says:


          Thanks for your opinion.

          According to the Constitution all persons do NOT have the right to life. The 14th Amendment clearly states the gov’t can take a person’s life with due process of law.

          “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

          Armies kill thousands or millions. If a person feels threatened they can kill another person.

          • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

            Hey Dowd, you pointed out that according to the Constitution all persons do NOT have the right to life but then you claim they do because that right can’t be taken away without due process. You beat your own argument. If they didn’t have the right to life to begin with we wouldn’t need due process of law to take it away.

            Furthermore armies kill people? Really? What has that got to do with an individuals human rights? Armies rape people, steal their property and destroy their homes and belongings. Are all those things okay too cause armies do it? BTW, there are rules to war also and murder is still illegal during war.


      • The not-even catholic, much less Catholic, Elwood P Dowd wrote:

        When does a conceptus become a person?

        It should be at conception!

        We already know that he is alive; we define single cell organisms as alive if they meet certain criteria, including respiration, absorption of nutrients, elimination of wastes and reproduction. There is no question that life exists even at the moment of conception.

        Which leaves those favoring prebirth infanticide trying to claim that he is not human or is not a person. He is obviously human, in that his DNA are human, and he continues along the natural growth path through which all humans go.

        That leaves the question Mr Dowd raises: is he a legal person?

        The Supreme Court addressed a similar question 166 years ago:

        The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution? . . . .

        The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

        The case was, of course, Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

        You know what? This response became too, too long, 2,039 words, and had too many links, so I finished it on my poor site.

        • The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

          The pro-birther Dana claims personhood begins at conception, and no doubt many Red State legislators agree. This means several million “persons” die by miscarriage each year.

          Should we treat each miscarriage as a potential murder? We realize that pro-birther legislators are working hard to cover all the bases for preventing any women slipping through their fingers. Right now most early abortions are induced by FDA-approved oral drugs at home and legislators are looking at state laws to make it more difficult to obtain and use.

          What punishment would the woman in a “ban” state receive for her part in these 1st degree murders of a person? What if she travels to Illinois for an abortion, will she be a murderer in Missouri?

          We understand that no one on the pro-birth side wants to address these questions but they remain, nonetheless.

          • Dana says:

            The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:

            What punishment would the woman in a “ban” state receive for her part in these 1st degree murders of a person? What if she travels to Illinois for an abortion, will she be a murderer in Missouri?

            We understand that no one on the pro-birth side wants to address these questions but they remain, nonetheless.

            Abortion is a planned event, which means that the murder of an unborn child is premeditated. Every person involved — the woman, the abortionist, any nurses or technicians attending the procedure, and the guy who pays for it — should be tried for murder in the first degree, and imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives.

            Sadly, Missouri law does not apply in Illinois, so she could not be punished for that. However, women who do this should be publicly identified and publicly shamed. Given your previous support for picketing judges homes, in violation of 18 UDS §1507, you should have no problems at all with this.

            Abortionists, the nurses who work at these ‘clinics,’ the technicians and even the receptionists, should be identified and publicly shamed. Vendors who service these ‘clinics’ should be identified and picketed, trying to force them to stop doing that business. Landlords who rent to such facilities should be pressured to kick them out, if they can, or at the very least decline to renew their leases. Again, to remain consistent with the protests you endorsed previously, you should have no problems with this.

        • The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Clever boy! Wish I had the energy to read your screed! LOL

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:


    When does a conceptus become a person with full Constitutional rights?

    At conception? 2 cell stage? Implantation? 1 month, 3 month, birth, 12 years, 18 years?

    Not a single pro-birth, anti-abortion fetishist wants to answer.

    The 14th Amendment says the government can deprive an American of life with due process.

    “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

    We’ve been told that children are not covered by the 1st or 2nd Amendments, because they’re not persons yet.

    The 26th says: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

    implying that at 18 Americans become a person.

    Can we all just admit that our Constitution is interpreted by men to mean what they want it to mean? It’s unsettling, but true.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Rimjob now fancies himself a constitutional lawyer.
      Guess he has nothing better to do. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_scratch.gif

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Down on the Corner says:

      According to the left.

      A baby that cannot sustain itself can be aborted.
      so a baby born and lying on a table cannot support itself therefore it can be aborted.

      By this reasoning any child up to and including about 2.5 years old is not self-sustaining and would most likely die without adult intervention, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill toddlers.

      Then there are the mentally retarded that cannot sustain themself. They could be aborted at 18-25 years old by the left’s definition. Those born with life changing defects that will hinder drastically their ability to care for themselves.

      In short. The Groomers want to groom the world into aborting Conservative babies cause the left is already aborting their own at record paces.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Groomer on the Corner typed (imagining what pro-choice people believe): A baby that cannot sustain itself can be aborted.

        Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions claimed no such thing. Abortions by 12 weeks gestation, with exceptions for later procedures.

        An ectopic pregnancy is a fertilized egg (baby) that implants outside the normal uterus and cannot survive and is a risk to the woman. Should that baby be saved?

        • Facts Matter says:

          Once again DOWD just makes up shit and calls people names that do not call him names.

          The public has been outraged by a recent slew of state legislatures and Democrat politicians looking to legalize the murder of the unborn up to the moment of birth or, astonishingly, even after birth. Earlier this month, pro-lifers and even many who consider themselves “pro-choice” were horrified to see New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic Democrat, sign and celebrate the passing of the euphemistically-named Reproductive Health Act. Aside from legalizing abortion up to the moment of birth, the legislation loosens restrictions on who can perform abortions, and strips the murder of the unborn (including the murder of wanted babies) from the state’s criminal code.

          Virginia’s insurance plans established under the Affordable Care Act did not include abortion coverage unless the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or if the life of the mother was at risk due to health complications.

          BUT Democrats forced insurance companies to COVER without limits abortion up to and including being born.

          VA Gov. Ralph Northam signs massive pro-abortion bill into law, inserting abortion without limits into Virginia’s health coverage and forcing pro-life taxpayers to fund it.

          At a rally in Wisconsin on Saturday night, Trump noted that the state’s Democratic governor Tony Evers “shockingly stated that he will veto legislation that protects Wisconsin babies born alive,” referring to a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive in the course of an attempted abortion procedure.

          Call me a groomer Elwood. Grooming facts sounds good to me. But you simply make stuff up hoping no one bothers to search for the real truth.

          The facts are indisputable. The political left does not value human life. The left who are not political is every bit as moral and upstanding as the rest of the USA. The political left is a bane to the existence of those who cannot fend for themselves. Unless you are child rapists welcomed with open arms crossing our borders.

          • Elwod P. Dowd says:

            OK grooomer.

            The facts ARE indisputable. The political Right does not value human life, unless it’s the life of select zygotes, embryos and fetuses of poor women. Once born, the political Right cares not at all. The political Right is a bane to the existence of those who cannot fend for themselves, and especially the existence of the American experiment as a democratic republic.

            Roe v. Wade, 1973…

            On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

            The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

            In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

            The Draconians consider a new person is “preborn” at the moment of conception, and that any outside agent that interferes with the continuation of the process is 1st degree murder punishable by life in prison or execution depending on the state (most “red” states still execute persons). For example, if/when KY bans all abortions it’s likely a young woman will be executed by lethal injection for obtaining an abortion by taking two pills authorized by the U.S. FDA, no doubt leading to much rejoicing in the hills! Don’t do the crime if you can’t take the needle ladies!! So, a young woman can be put to death by the state for “murdering” a ball of cells having a 50% chance of dying by miscarriage anyway!

            And no, it would not be fair to execute the sperm donor who impregnated the girl who obtained the abortion, so perhaps some low level felony with probably a few years in prison and a fine. If he in some way materially supported the murder he could be charged as she is. The Draconians need to advertise this point as a further deterrent to keep others from assisting in an abortion!!

            Bloodthirsty righties!! You know, it wouldn’t be a problem if those girls would just do what men tell them.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Gotta love it when Rimjob tries to make nonsensical legal arguments about a moral issue especially the droning on and on with his silly little rhetorical questions.

            Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Doom and Gloom says:

            Elwood just reinforces the argument FACTS made.

            Down on the corner and Facts were not even talking about ROE v WADE. He was saying the left believes they can just violate the stipulations of the SCOTUS RULING by killing babies at any time for any reason which is not what the ruling suggested.

            Again. Dowd conflates issues and then as people move on from the posts his becomes the last NON DEBATED POST. This is how the left operates on blogs. They always want the last word in every post after everyone else has lost interest in it and has moved on.

            People do searches and come across this post and the comments. Reading the comments suggests that the side opposing DOWD has no argument for his defense of something that was not even spoken about.

            Roe V wade says one thing. The LEFT IS SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND FACTS MATTER pointed out what they are doing and saying to support his position on that fact.

            That the left believes babies can die at any time perhaps in 20-30-40 years toddlers are fair game to a depraved society that has abandoned GOD and turned to the deprivation of Self-interest no matter the human cost.

    • Dana says:

      The esteemed Mr Dowd mistakes the law:

      We’ve been told that children are not covered by the 1st or 2nd Amendments, because they’re not persons yet.

      No, the law does not say that they are not legal persons; the laws state that they are not adults.

      The 26th says: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

      implying that at 18 Americans become a person.

      Boy, did you foul that up! The 26th does not refer to ‘persons,’ but to citizens. More, the 14th Amendment refers to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which means at the very least that having been born, a person is a legal person.

  3. CarolAnn says:

    “Rimjob now fancies himself a constitutional lawyer.”

    Perhaps but he’s not moralist. Being entitled to full Constitutional rights has nothing to do with being “considered” a human being. Humans were humans long before the Constitution was ever written. Humanity is a God-given blessing not a Constitutional right. That’s why Elwood P. Dowd fails to comprehend the concept. He does not believe in God therefore people are no more than biological creatures entitled to life no more that a virus.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      CarolAnn typed: Humanity is a God-given blessing not a Constitutional right

      Certainly you agree that not everyone must obey your religion.

      There may be a God or gods. I don’t know.

      • CarolAnn says:

        Elwood typed: Certainly you agree that not everyone must obey your religion.

        Did I say anyone must obey my religion? I said a persons life is a God-given blessing in other words a human right. Certainly you believe in human rights and the right to life is the highest of all human rights. Your cruelty and callousness are noted but you are blinded from compassion for the unborn children by your political proclivities. You only see injustice in so far as it applies to your beliefs (or lack thereof) not to the lives or beliefs of others.

        But whether or not you believe in God doesn’t matter if you have a moral compass. Unfortunately it seems those nonbelievers lack that compass and the compassion that goes with it.

        Pregnancy is only a temporary problem but the child’s death is a permanent solution. Pregnancy is terminated naturally by birth. The birth of a human baby. You can use whatever words or definitions you want to blur the picture but once those cells get together a human is taking shape.

        I can’t help but feel sorry for a person with so little love or respect for human life. It must be both sad and scary to be you. I know most of the things you’ve talked about here scare the hell out of me and I’m a mother of two one of which many people would have aborted.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          Are you concerned for the millions of miscarriages in the U.S. every year?

          I don’t know any pro-choice person who wants to force a woman to have an abortion. So what are you scared of?

          And how would you handle an ectopic pregnancy? Your mindset is that this is a person to be saved at all costs. A doctor’s mindset is that this bundle of cells is a threat to a woman’s life that needs to be removed by drugs or surgery. What should be done?

  4. […] William Teach’s most liberal commenter, a strong supporter of prenatal infanticide, asked: […]

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      There is no such thing as prenatal infanticide. Maybe you could call it “zygoticide”.

      Is male masturbation “preconception infanticide”?

      But… if there was, would your “god” be guilty of it by killing millions of zygotes and embryos in or just short of the womb?

      Are IUDs instruments of zygoticide or embryocide?

  5. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Will anti-abortion forces in states where abortion remains legal be stimulated to press their case more forcefully?

  6. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

    We appreciate your candor.

    Most abortions are performed via medications, not at surgery clinics, so your job just got much harder.

    1st degree murder charges for all involved! Will you feel at all bad if a woman is executed after being found guilty of 1st degree murder for getting an abortion at 12 weeks?

    How will stalk and identify the women who travel from KY to Illinois for an abortion?

    We would take pictures of all the protesters, license plate numbers when we followed them back to their autos. We would follow them home and stake out their homes. Legally of course. We would identify their place of work, their church, and publicly shame them on social media.

    If a woman is caught using an IUD, a method that blocks the uterine implantation of a tiny person, what is the appropriate punishment? Proving murder will be difficult.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      We want to know if the brave Dana will join the shamers and protesters at the poor women’s homes or will he leave that to others?

  7. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

    And will Lock ’em Up Dana track down the sperm donors and make them pay for their irresponsible behavior? And if they can’t track down the men will he support that the state will pay the expenses for the woman?

  8. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    Atta boy Dowd, dial it up to eleventeen as usual so we can all see how desperate you are to kill babies. Way to go, can you get more evil? Yes!!! Make Christians pay for all abortions Catholics pay double. Electrocute men who have impregnated women who abort their baby. Allow abortion up till the 36th month with rebates for twins.

    OR! How about instead of the same old hysterical arguments making no sense morally or legally. Maybe if you tried using reason instead of hypothetical hysteria and innuendo we could talk. That’s right, you don’t want to talk. You want a free pass to abortion because ALL THAT COUNTS is a WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Nobody and nothing else matters. Woman should never be forced to deliver the life they created.


    • The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Lurking Groooomer,

      Given your own history we understand your agitation.

      Women rarely get pregnant alone, yet Mx Dana Draco wants to lock them away for life while the sperm donor gets to walk away.

      If the state forces a raped woman to raise a child she didn’t want, of course the state is responsible for the child. If the state forces a woman to raise a child she didn’t want, of course the sperm donor is equally responsible for the child, and if the state refuses to find him, the state takes over his responsibilities. Part of Red State taxes will go to cover for irresponsible sperm donors. “It’s a man’s world!”

      And Mx Draco refuses to discuss the specifics of his rules for women.

      1)There are millions of miscarriages every year – how does the state determine if the miscarriage was an act of nature or an act of murder?? And since most abortions now result from taking FDA-approved infanticide pills, Red States will have to crack down on their availability and use. If Cletus in southern Illinois can get the infanticide pills and drive into KY and deliver them to his cousin Louetta how will the state catch them? What if they get mailed from Chicago? Maybe Mx Draco suggests blood tests for all women having a miscarriage, but only once the KY establishes a system for monitoring women’s repro cycle.

      2)Some “so-called” contraceptives eliminate the fertilized egg which, in Draco’s view, is a method of infanticide, so these methods will have to be investigated and banned. What if Louetta visits Cletus and while there gets an IUD, will the KY authorities check at the IL-KY border for intrauterine “contraband”?

      Actually, what we think will happen is that states like OK will ban all abortions as a lack-of-all-virtue signaling and look the other way for all the violators. Mx Draco wants to start a nationwide movement to shame women who violate his/her creed but that movement won’t last long. Yes, yes, there will be a brief period of right-wing violence related to “populist” enforcement of the laws but that will die out.

  9. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Yesterday in Oklahoma…

    The Republican-backed legislation bans abortion from the moment of “fertilization,” making exceptions only in cases of medical emergency, rape or incest.

    Really? Exceptions for medical emergencies, rape and incest? If the fertilized egg resulting from rape and incest is a person why does the state of OK allow their murder??

    Just more lack-of-virtue signaling…

    • CarolAnn says:

      They shouldn’t Mr. Dowd. So you’re an absolutist. There is no compromise. There’s not a hint of mercy in your being for anyone to be saved. Quite telling even for an atheist communist.

      I also love how you equate saving 97% of all babies as a “lack-of-virtue”. That means of course you possess an absence-of virtue since you would kill 100%.

  10. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. Dowd says:


    Roe v. Wade WAS the compromise!

    How can you call a fertilized egg a person but still allow its murder even if a result of rape or incest? A rape “baby” or an uncle’s “baby” is no less valuable than a lust “baby”. It’s not the “baby’s” fault.

    Pro-birther extremists would even let a woman die to save the fetus. Do you think a zygote, embryo or fetus has the same right to life as a living, breathing woman?

    And once again, ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg (a “baby”) lodges outside of the hormonally-prepared endometrium (uterine lining). This “baby” is usually “murdered” by drugs or surgery to save the woman. Is the woman deemed more valuable than the “baby”?

    50% of fertilized eggs are lost early without intervention. We have some 4 million live births a year, and some 600,000 abortions. That leaves over 3 million lost fertilized eggs or “babies” or “infants”. Nature murders more “babies” than do abortions.

    Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, it means leaving the choice up to the woman. Most pregnant women choose NOT to abort. Good!!

Pirate's Cove