Forget Real Crimes & Terror, Department of Homeland Security Zeroes in on Middle-Aged Pro-Life Women as Domestic Threat 

Caroline Wharton - 15 May 2023

Keeping the peace isn’t as fun as keeping peeping — Department of Homeland Spying 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used to prioritize securing our nation’s border and stopping domestic terrorist threats. That is, until a much greater threat was identified: middle-aged women who think killing babies is wrong. The absolute horror. Since discovering this pro-life peril, the DHS has substituted ‘security’ for ‘spying,’ and new reports show the agency was attempting to conscript Americans into their stalker club, as well. Here’s what you need to know:  

According to documents obtained by the America First Legal Foundation, mere days after pro-abortion President Biden was inaugurated in 2021, the DHS’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships appeared to float the idea of producing bystander training videos which targeted middle-aged pro-life women. These videos would allegedly be “Choose Your Own Adventure” style trainings to show Americans how to identify “radicalization and potential violence” with five different scenarios. Somehow, belief in the right to life made it on that blacklist.  

One of the “radicalization suspect” scenarios included a profile for a “pro-life advocate” who was named “Ann” and described as female and “middle-aged.” The fictional profile read:  

“This is Ann, a resident of Elkville in rural America. Ann has always been religious but since the death of her mother, she’s become increasingly devout. She’s a regular in the small-town community, active in several church groups. While she has always been protective of her four kids, she has become increasingly more concerned about the welfare of other children including the unborn.”  

At this point, the viewer is asked to take on a bystander role and choose from three “difficult choices that approximate real-life decisions at the end of each scene.” These include a bakery employee, a hairdresser, and a pastor.  

The bakery employee’s scenario includes hearing the woman scream “baby killer” at the town mayor during a ribbon-cutting for a bakery. The bystander choices include calling her husband or pastor for more information or visiting Ann’s house to “chat.”  

The hairdresser’s scenario includes Ann vaguely saying the Planned Parenthood office needs to be “put to a stop” and showing the hairdresser “videos of violent protesters on her phone.” The first bystander choice is to call the sheriff (what to say is not specified). The other two choices include the hairdresser talking to her staff about impressions of Ann or to “research the groups” Ann mentioned.  

The pastor’s scenario reads, “You’re the preacher at Elkville’s only church. You notice that one of your members, Ann, has become increasingly more fervent about her pro-life stance. You see her and another parishioner in a heated discussion during a prayer group. Ann asks you directly if the Bible justifies violence in defense of life.” Choices include scheduling counseling, speaking to her husband, or reaching out to a church member on this.  

Here’s the thing: we don’t favor the term “baby killer” either, and we certainly don’t condone violence (since our mission is actually to eradicate violence), but we just have so many questions about why this DHS training was ever considered.  

For example, who selectively brainwashed the masterminds of this project, compelling them to forget the implications of our First Amendment rights? Did its creators live under a rock and thus miss the fact that it is actually the abortion lobby that promotes violence? (Recent data shows that attacks on the pro-lifers occur 22 times more often than on abortion supporters.)  

How did no one smell McCarthyism and get creeped out by the idea that the government was asking Americans to tattle on their neighbors’ beliefs? Where are the statistics showing middle-aged pro-life women are wreaking havoc? And most poignantly: while the DHS is meddling with forty-somethings who care about the sanctity of life, who is minding the store?  

Sadly, this is what happens with a pro-abortion Administration — real, important duties are thrown aside in order to enshrine abortion and squash opposition. That’s why it’s important to always vote pro-life first because the pro-life movement will focus on protecting both the born and the preborn. In contrast, the abortion lobby is focused on just killing more preborn babies —and as they have proved through No Test, Online Distribution (and maybe a less-than-stellar focus on national security), they’re okay if others are harmed or die in the process, too.  

READ NEXT: SFLA Student Spokespersons Advice for the Pro-Life Generation 

Share this post