Has the White House awakened from its indifference to pro-abortion violence?

Kurt Mahlburg
June 20, 2022
Reproduced with Permission
politics & policy

The FBI has finally announced it will investigate the spate of pro-abortion violence that has followed the Supreme Court leak indicating a possible overturn of Roe v. Wade .

Live Action has listed at least 67 incidents of violence and intimidation across the United States over recent weeks, including vandalism, fire bombings, church service interruptions -- and the attempted murder of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Most of these events never made the national news but they are well documented.

But up until late last week, the federal government remained uninterested in the attacks. It was a jarring scenario, given the ease with which the Biden administration has thrown around the "domestic terrorism" label in its short time in office.

In February this year, the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin suggesting that if a citizen expressed scepticism toward federal Covid-19 mandates they might be a "domestic violent extremist".

In the latter half of 2021, after a series of heated exchanges between school boards and parents upset over radical left-wing ideology in schools, the National School Boards Association sought White House intervention via a letter that characterised parents as potential "domestic terrorists". Evidence later emerged that the White House itself may have solicited the letter.

Why did it take weeks of arson attacks and church desecrations -- and an open letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland signed by 25 pro-life groups -- for the Feds to turn their domestic terrorist radar on? They went after disgruntled parents and Covid sceptics for mere dissent.

The politicisation of America's intelligence agencies is only the latest casualty in the culture wars.

Acts of violence carried out by pro-lifers have long been used to discredit the movement. Despite this, violence has been an aberration rather than a norm in the pro-life camp, and it is philosophically inconsistent with the movement's values.

The same cannot be said for those arguing for the deaths of the unborn, a tally that now surpasses 63 million in the United States.

While it is no shock to see violence marshalled in defence of further violence, it is deeply concerning that the Biden administration has tolerated so much of it for partisan ends.

It took until Wednesday -- and a sinister communique from radical pro-abortion outfit Jane's Revenge -- for the White House to issue a clear denunciation of the violence that has been taking place.

The Jane's Revenge communique boasted that it is "easy and fun" to attack pro-life centres and vowed "to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures."

"You could have walked away. Now the leash is off," the post continued. "And we will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of oppression to continue... Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti."

It is still unclear whether Jane's Revenge is an organised group, or merely a call to violence via copycat attacks. It did, however, claim responsibility for attacks in "Madison WI, Ft. Collins CO, Reisertown MA, Olympia WA, Des Moines IA, Lynwood WA, Washington DC, Ashville NC, Buffalo NY, Hollywood FL, Vancouver WA, Frederick MA, Denton TX, Gresham OR, Eugene OR, Portland OR," and others.

While the FBI's investigation comes as welcome news, the outcome already feels predictable: a token report months from now, and no arrests.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justices will continue fearing for the safety of their families as pro-abortion activists are allowed to picket their houses in violation of federal law . As Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen noted:

"Just as it is against the law to tamper with witnesses or jurors by intimidating them or their family, it's unlawful to tamper with a Supreme Court justice by coming to their home to threaten, harass or coerce them to influence their vote in a case before the court."

It's unlikely but possible that some on the bench might choose to uphold Roe simply to keep themselves and their loved ones alive.

They say that justice must be blind - but who could ever have imagined that the US President and his Attorney-General would turn a blind eye to injustice?