Don't just take my opinion. Trust in what Thomas Jefferson wrote. Read again, for the first time, the original draft of the DOI.
It includes this grievance: “He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property”
This reference to “treasonable insurrections” referred to the actions of the loyalists and is sometimes confused by first-time readers of the DOI with the term “domestic insurrections,” a euphemism for slave insurrections.
The entire passage relating to the treasonable insurrections of loyalists was stricken from the DOI. Somewhere in his writings Thomas Jefferson explains why Congress did not want to deliberately offend the English people (as opposed to the King.)
If you had access to all Jefferson's papers and could follow him from draft to draft, you might say, "Ah, yes, this is what happened to his long strange attack on slavery. It somehow got condensed into a sentence about 'domestic insurrections,'" but if you were the average reader of the time -- or even of today -- you might not reach that conclusion, because most of the stuff about slavery was removed.
It's a strange passage. Wasn't the Revolution itself a kind of "insurrection"? Were there really royalist "insurrections" against it? How many actual slave revolts were "excited" by the king and his army and officials? Or was just running off considered to be an "insurrection" by Jefferson?
I also don't remember any "urban anti-abortion rioting" in the last century or this one. I also never heard of the "anti-abortion riots of 1834 and 1835 (more than a dozen)." It looks like the writer (or editor or publisher) wanted to say "anti-abolition" or "anti-abolitionist" and got confused (or spellchecked). While the article makes a good point that "domestic insurrections" aren't necessarily slave uprisings, that doesn't mean it's authoritative about everything.