It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

It is not for you to prescribe what the righteous may or may not take comfort in. I take comfort in the fact that this issue is once again returned to democratic process. That way we will at least deserve what we get.

It is up to the people whether that "system" lives or dies. So be it.

The system is more than a collective, it is individual lives. People struggling every day, many under overwhelming pressures.

People have always fallen through cracks and their plights forgotten. It's not Christlike to shrug our shoulders at that. We should be looking after the least of these. 

Democracy has inherent limitations and rightfully should be excepted to defend basic human rights. It shouldn't be used to oppress women.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Watching @LoudmouthMormon engage in mansplaining to @Meadowchik how her feelings aren't valid because this is just how the government is supposed to work...or something. Classic. "Don't you worry your pretty little head about these things, little girl. Us men have it all figured out and leave it to us to make sure you do the right things with your body."

And frankly I accepted this most of my life. I accepted that overall authority over me, even if it meant I would suffer my whole life. 

And I did suffer, and so did people I loved, because of that.

I am glad that I don't accept that anymore. Life is still difficult, but this new self-determination gives me joy.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

Dp

Edited June 25, 2022 by Meadowchik

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Watching @LoudmouthMormon engage in mansplaining to @Meadowchik how her feelings aren't valid because this is just how the government is supposed to work...or something. Classic. "Don't you worry your pretty little head about these things, little girl. Us men have it all figured out and leave it to us to make sure you do the right things with your body."

Funny how Loudmouth didn't actually say anything like that, but it serves your rhetorical purposes to put words in his mouth. 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

As an American woman, I see this as a betrayal of my right to right, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. My body is not your domain, leave me alone.

In essence the are two competing rights. A) A woman's right to control her body and B) a fetus's right to life. On one extreme there is the position A) always trumps B) … a position that allows for an abortion for any reason up until birth. Then there is the other extreme that B) always trumps A), a position that forbids all abortions of viable fetuses.

Most fall somewhere in between the extremes and are willing to define an arbitratry point were B) starts to outweigh A). That is exactly what Roe v Wade did. The Supreme Court has now said the Constitution doesn't demark that boundary and returned it to the states to do so.

To me, that doesn't seem like a horribly egregious outrage but pretty reasonable. States can push that A)—B) line either way and eventually, probably, society will come to some kind of consensus (e.g. like we did with the legal drinking age).

I might be wrong, but I doubt you are extreme position A), but like juliann, put the dividing line somewhere in between. I think it helpful to clearly state one's position and not resort to sound bites that may inaccurately suggest one's position (or misrepresent the other side).

[Meadowchik]

Just now, OGHoosier said:

Funny how Loudmouth didn't actually say anything like that, but it serves your rhetorical purposes to put words in his mouth. 

He "chuckled," and then later bet ten dollars that there's much more to the issue than I understand. As if he knows.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

If every state has a different law on something like this, is there a legal standard whereby laws NEED to be made national?

The Constitution is structured so as to allow states to have laws that differ from comparable laws in other states.

Consider, for example, real property law, which is almost exclusively based on state law.  State laws vary quite a bit from state to state as to things like evictions, boundary line disputes, easements, quiet title claims, and so on.  This has been going on forever and nobody bats an eye because the system is set up to allow such diversity of approaches at the state level.  And if and when such states take different approaches, that does not create constitutional authority for the federal government to take over that sector of the law.

Here, abortion is being construed as falling under the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That was the issue with SSM after all, people shouldn't be able to be considered married in one state and not in another when legal issues require crossing state lines.  That's beyond messy.
Is there a legal term for that situation?

FWIF, I think Obergefell was wrongly decided for many of the same reasons as Roe was.  

That said, I can see a distinction.  A "marriage" is an ongoing relationship/status that can cross state lines, so the "married in one state and not in another"-style conundrum was an understandable problem.  I don't think that difficulty retroactively gave rise authority for SCOTUS to create/recognize a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage, though.

Anyway, an abortion is an event, not an ongoing thing.  And it must take place in a geographical space, and that space will fall within the borders of a particular state, and hence will be subject to regulation by that particular state.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's a flimsy hope to rely on that.

And Christ said as much by saying the kingdom is here and now. 

So don't destroy a system you cannot rebuild, don't destroy it to rely on the Christ to fix the mess.

Not really.

If anyone thinks when Christ rules and reigns personally that his government of earth will allow the murder of unborn children without penalty they're dreaming.
 

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

In essence the are two competing rights. A) A woman's right to control her body and B) a fetus's right to life. On one extreme there is the position A) always trumps B) … a position that allows for an abortion for any reason up until birth. Then there is the other extreme that B) always trumps A), a position that forbids all abortions of viable fetuses.

Most fall somewhere in between the extremes and are willing to define an arbitratry point were B) starts to outweigh A). That is exactly what Roe v Wade did. The Supreme Court has now said the Constitution doesn't demark that boundary and returned it to the states to do so.

To me, that doesn't seem like a horribly egregious outrage but pretty reasonable. States can push that A)—B) line either way and eventually, probably, society will come to some kind of consensus (e.g. like we did with the legal drinking age).

I might be wrong, but I doubt you are extreme position A), but like juliann, put the dividing line somewhere in between. I think it helpful to clearly state one's position and not resort to sound bites that may inaccurately suggest one's position (or misrepresent the other side).

We're a constitutional republic, and neither the states nor the populous on any level should be left entirely free to determine what is just.

[OGHoosier]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The system is more than a collective, it is individual lives. People struggling every day, many under overwhelming pressures.

People have always fallen through cracks and their plights forgotten. It's not Christlike to shrug our shoulders at that. We should be looking after the least of these. 

Democracy has inherent limitations and rightfully should be excepted to defend basic human rights. It shouldn't be used to oppress women.

Given that "system" is a unitary noun, it must needs describe a singular entity, albeit one composed of other entities. If you simply meant "individual lives," there are other words which would have sufficed. If this "system" is worth defending to this extent, we will need more clarity as to what we are actually being accused of destroying here.

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

People have always fallen through cracks and their plights forgotten. It's not Christlike to shrug our shoulders at that. We should be looking after the least of these. 

I was under the impression that we were looking after the least of these. 60 million of them have slipped through the cracks by now. The irony of using Christ's words to defend such a moral abscess is absolutely revolting. 

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Democracy has inherent limitations and rightfully should be excepted to defend basic human rights. It shouldn't be used to oppress women.

I agree with all of this, but for obvious reasons I think these observations are not terribly germane.

[smac97]

A preliminary assessment from a law professor whose legal analysis I find to be generally quite good (and who, IIRC, is pro-choice) :

Quote

A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ON DOBBS: First, it’s a big win for the rule of law — by which I mean not so much the opinion as that the justices stood firm in the face of unprecedented threats ranging from Chuck Schumer’s “pay the price” language to mobs and an actual armed assassin showing up at their homes. A Supreme Court that can be bullied is a Supreme Court that will be bullied. Unlike Roberts’ flip in the ObamaCare case, the majority here held firm, which will discourage bullying in the future.

Second, the likely result is that a few states will ban abortion entirely, a few will permit it for the entire term, and for most it’ll look something like Europe, with abortion easy to get for the first 12 weeks or so, and much harder after that. (The Mississippi law in question here was actually more liberal than many, perhaps most, European laws).

States won’t be able to ban interstate travel for the purpose of getting an abortion because interstate travel is a separate constitutional right. Congress will not be able to guarantee a right to abortion because its 14th Amendment power to enforce the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to abortion, which the Court has found isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment. It will not be able to either protect abortion or ban it under its commerce power because abortion isn’t interstate commerce, and is a traditional subject of state regulation.

It’ll take a few years to shake out, but we’re likely to wind up with what we would have had by 1976 or so if Roe had never been decided — a spectrum of laws around the country that will be adjusted over time based on experience and the views of the electorate. Though, of course, the norm may be stricter than it would have been without Roe, which called into being a huge pro-life movement that probably wouldn’t have existed otherwise.

A considerably longer assessment is here.  A key bit (pertaining to the points being raised in this thread about the impact on women's right) :

Quote

Interestingly, the three liberal justices produced only one joint dissent. One would have thought each would want the opportunity to weigh in on this decision separately, but instead they combined to accuse the majority of depriving women of their rights and passing those off to legislatures:

Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be. See Casey, 505 U. S., at 853; Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 171–172 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.

Roe and Casey well understood the difficulty and divisiveness of the abortion issue. The Court knew that Americans hold profoundly different views about the “moral[ity]” of “terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 850. And the Court recognized that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting” the “life of the fetus that may become a child.” Id., at 846. So the Court struck a balance, as it often does when values and goals compete.

That, however, is not the function of courts when it comes to policy. That is a legislative function, except when it crosses into enumerated constitutional rights and provisions. The minority wants to continue to argue for a judiciary that creates policy to solve issues of deep division within American society, but that is a task specifically and explicitly assigned to the legislative branch in the Constitution. The judiciary’s role is to apply law, not create regulatory-esque balancing schemes as public policy and then remove them from the reach of elected legislators. And the near-fifty years of chaos and jumbled judicial fiddling over issues like viability, access, and even free speech in the vicinity of abortion clinics prove just how correct the framers of the Constitution were to separate those functions.

"{The Supreme Court striking a balance between competing values and goals on issues where Americans hold profoundly different views} is not the function of courts when it comes to policy. That is a legislative function, except when it crosses into enumerated constitutional rights and provisions. "

This is very well put.

A bit more:

Quote

Now that Roe is finished, legislators can finally start to pick up the threads of a process locked in stasis for the last five decades. I spoke with Austin Ruse of the Center for Family & Human Rights in my latest podcast about what comes next. He fears that the US will settle into the European model of abortion, which would still be an improvement over the status quo in the US, but would leave a lot of babies dead in the future too.

I think this prediction will likely prove accurate.

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We're a constitutional republic, and neither the states nor the populous on any level should be left entirely free to determine what is just.

This is pretty strawman-ish.  Nobody is saying that the states are "left entirely free to determine what is just."  

And surely you would apply this to the Supreme Court, too?  That it is not "left entirely free to determine what is just?"

Our system of laws is chock full of checks and balances.  We have the U.S. Constitution, which differentiates power and authority between three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial), which establishes and regulates the relationship between the federal and state governments, which relegates certain areas of law to the federal government and leaves the rest to the states or the people, which includes constraints on governmental authority (many of which restrictions were originally applied to the federal government, but have since become "incorporated" to apply to state and local governments as well), which identifies individual rights and freedoms, which allows for citizens to vote and speak and petition the government, and so on.  Each state likewise has its own Constitution, with similar "checks and balances."

Dobbs doesn't change any of this.  If anything, it improves the "checks and balances" situation, since individual Americans will now have a more substantial voice in determining how abortion is to be regulated.  You have the right to vote, to petition to government, to (peacefully) protest, and so on.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2022 by smac97

[bsjkki]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A false comfort. Righteousness should make people uncomfortable, not that wickedness and suffering can be solved by dictatorship. 

The righteous should seek comfort in helping women and children instead of trying to control them.

I have a hard time when the plight of the unborn is completely dismissed. Letting a child live is definitely 'helping' them. Those agencies trying to help pregnant women and children are getting vandalized and fire bombed. I prefer our 'messy' union of 50 states instead of a top down system. Yes, we have basic rights as outlined in the Constitution but this is not one of them. They have returned these decisions to the people (through their vote). 

 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is no more foundational precept to a free society than the peaceful transfer of power based on the will of the people. 

Adding to that, the Judicial Branch is an essential foundation as well. 

[Nofear]

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We're a constitutional republic, and neither the states nor the populous on any level should be left entirely free to determine what is just.

That is very true. Hence the discussion of enumerated rights and unenumerated rights. But, the question *still* remains on where to put the dividing line when woman's bodily autonomy ceases to outweigh viable fetus's right to life. If you want the Supreme Court to decide that, would you be content if they shifted unilaterally the line granting fetal life greater weight than bodily autonomy?

All I'm asking for is logical coherency in the dialog.

[bsjkki]

I wonder if Utah will modify their trigger law? https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/how-soon-will-abortion-law-change-in-utah

"Utah's law will make abortions illegal except in case is where pregnancy occurred from rape or incest, and also make exceptions for women whose health would be compromised.

Lisonbee said contraception such as the so-called "day after pill" would still be legal even under Utah's new abortion law due to it being used before "implantation." The state will also stop short of prohibiting women from traveling to another state for an abortion.

"Certainly a woman is free to travel from state-to-state," said Lisonbee. "I don't know of any Utah law in the past that has sought to punish a woman who has sought an abortion. We have always focused our laws on punishing those who perform the abortions."

Edited June 24, 2022 by bsjkki

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Lisonbee said contraception such as the so-called "day after pill" would still be legal even under Utah's new abortion law due to it being used before "implantation." The state will also stop short of prohibiting women from traveling to another state for an abortion.

"Certainly a woman is free to travel from state-to-state," said Lisonbee. "I don't know of any Utah law in the past that has sought to punish a woman who has sought an abortion. We have always focused our laws on punishing those who perform the abortions."

I don't think states have the ability to punish a woman who crosses state lines to get an abortion.  From my previous post (quoting Prof. Glenn Reynolds) :

Quote

States won’t be able to ban interstate travel for the purpose of getting an abortion because interstate travel is a separate constitutional right. Congress will not be able to guarantee a right to abortion because its 14th Amendment power to enforce the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to abortion, which the Court has found isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment. It will not be able to either protect abortion or ban it under its commerce power because abortion isn’t interstate commerce, and is a traditional subject of state regulation.

I would oppose any state law that would seek to do this (punish crossing state lines for an abortion).  Not because I approve of abortion, but because the checks and balances in our system of laws need to be maintained.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

The Church has issued a statement:

Quote

As the Supreme Court voted to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling on Friday, lawmakers and institutions from around the world reacted to the major legislative change.

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded to the ruling that overturned constitutional abortion protections that have been in place for almost 50 years.

In an official statement, Church leaders say:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

Exceptions to the Church’s stance include:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.

The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/abortion

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think states have the ability to punish a woman who crosses state lines to get an abortion.

I agree. This ruling also doesn't extend to other cases. 

 

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, provoman said:

Adding to that, the Judicial Branch is an essential foundation as well. 

Yeah, so what is the estimated time until states start ignoring Supreme Court rulings?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

I agree. This ruling also doesn't extend to other cases. 

 

Many of those Justices said they wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade so I hope you will excuse my skepticism.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Frightening Threat to Brett Kavanaugh

(Emphases added.)

The concern about violence is warranted.

Thanks,

-Smac

And here: DHS Tells Churches, Pregnancy Centers to Brace for Violent Pro-Abortion 'Night of Rage'

Quote

The Department of Homeland Security is issuing a grave warning to pro-life Catholic churches and pregnancy centers, reportedly instructing in communications for them to prepare for a "Night of Rage" by pro-abortion activists who have been pledging "extreme violence" on the evening of the long-awaited Dobbs decision.

According to a document, titled "Urgent Memo," released to all clergy and parish staff by the communications team for the Diocese of Stockton, California, DHS agent Jesse Rangel made the diocese privy to the "latest nationwide intelligence reports" Thursday regarding Dobbs. A manifesto has been found by federal law enforcement officials calling for a "Night of Rage" beginning at 8 p.m. the night of the SCOTUS ruling.

Rangel said that "large groups with cells nationwide have already been discovered 'casing' parishes," including those in California. Bishop Myron Cotta and the Stockton Diocese's office of media and communications issued a "critical notice" for clergy, parishes, and Pastoral Center staff to "develop a plan should you see or hear anything suspicious." The directive instructs, "Make sure you have ushers and or security available during your services and perhaps identify who among your volunteers and parishioners are law enforcement."

"Suspicious activity would include someone asking out of place questions (Largest Mass times? Doors always open? Do you have security?), looking around church property, protestors, and general disturbances," it reads.
...
The threat of violence facing pro-life entities was issued in pen by radical abortion group Jane's Revenge, which signed a June 14 letter declaring "open season" on pro-life pregnancy crisis centers. The memo spoke of "increasing drastic measures" that might not be "so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti." Gleeful over how "easy and fun it is to attack" pro-life targets, Jane's Revenge referenced it claiming responsibility for various acts of arson and vandalism since the leak of the SCOTUS draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
...

The letter disseminated to email subscribers and via an "Abolition Media" blog post also cited a supposed month-long deadline for all pro-life groups to cease operations, asserting "your thirty days expired yesterday."

Pro-abortion extremists like Jane's Revenge and Antifa insurrectionists have planned a rage-filled night to respond to the Supreme Court's expected overturning of the landmark ruling. Flyers calling for the "Night of Rage" have appeared in the nation's capital, making its rounds across Washington, D.C. "DC CALL TO ACTION NIGHT OF RAGE," the event graphic rallying far-left comrades says. "THE NIGHT SCOTUS OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE HIT THE STREETS YOU SAID YOU'D RIOT." It signs off as Jane's Revenge, ending with its often spray-painted slogan, "TO OUR OPPRESSORS: IF ABORTIONS AREN'T SAFE, YOU’RE NOT EITHER."
...
In a national terrorism advisory bulletin dated June 7, DHS warned of a "heightened threat environment" in the coming months, identifying "faith-based institutions, schools, racial and religious minorities, government facilities and personnel, U.S. critical infrastructure, the media, and perceived ideological opponents" as targets.

I was glad to read this next part:

Quote

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at Wednesday's news briefing that President Joe Biden "denounces" the threatening messaging that promises looting, burning, and rioting if Roe falls.

 

A reporter asked Biden's top spokeswoman what message the White House has in advance of the official Supreme Court decision day. Jean-Pierre answered that "violence and destruction of property have no place in our country under any circumstance. And the president denounces this action."

"Actions like this are completely unacceptable regardless of our politics," Jean-Pierre replied further. "So we have denounced that and we will continue to denounce any violence or threats."

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Many of those Justices said they wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade so I hope you will excuse my skepticism.

I would hope that you provide these statements as evidence. 

As a precondition, it does not count if those justices described Roe v. Wade as "precedent" or "settled precedent." Of course they are precedent, they have been decided as such by prior courts, but that doesn't make them invulnerable. The Court has reversed itself an estimated 145 times, per the Washington Post. In the meantime, during their confirmation hearings justices refrain from making statements about the validity of particular cases due to a formalism called the Ginsburg Rule, first promulgated by RBG herself:

Quote

 

A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. . . . Anything I say could be taken as a hint or a forecast on how I would treat a classification that is going to be in question before a court. . . . I cannot say one word . . . that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews.

It's standard procedures for prospective justices, when asked about particular cases, to simply describe them as precedent and refuse to offer projections. 

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Many of those Justices said they wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade so I hope you will excuse my skepticism.

The facts with quotes. 

 

[smac97]

More here: How big US cities are preparing for protests after Roe v. Wade is overturned

Quote

Police departments in major cities across the country were monitoring extremist groups as they prepared for potential violent protests Friday over the Roe v. Wade ruling.

New York City cops braced for a long night with beefed-up patrols as pro-abortion protesters planned to gather in Washington Square and Union Square in Manhattan on Friday night.

In Dallas, Texas, workers boarded up windows on a federal building downtown and were seen putting fencing around the perimeter as one social-media group urged protesters to avoid posting pictures online and to “wear a mask and nondescript clothing.”

The pro-abortion radical group Jane’s Revenge, which has already claimed responsibility for arson attacks and vandalism since the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, published a letter last week declaring “open season” on pro-life pregnancy crisis centers. 

“We were unsurprised to see thirty days come and thirty days pass with no sign of consilience or even bare-minimum self-reflection from you,” the letter, dated June 14, reads, Fox News reported.

“History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes, and we’ve already seen such stanzas where medical autonomy is stripped away, humanity is increasingly criminalized, and merely surviving becomes largely untenable.”

The letter described how “easy and fun it is to attack” and vowed to take “increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures.”

 

In New York, NYPD officers were preparing “enhanced patrols” including at “abortion alternative clinics,” to thwart attacks from “extremists and malicious actors,” according to a memo sent by the NYPD’s intelligence bureau Wednesday that outlined their plan should the ruling be overturned.

“NYPD Intelligence Bureau personnel have observed threat actors espousing a range of violent ideologies — including single-issue extremism, anti-government/anti-fascist extremism, and racially/ethnically motivated violent extremism,” the memo states.
...

In Los Angeles, Capt. Charles Norris, who leads the LA County Sheriff’s Department Emergency Operations Bureau, told The Post his Sheriff’s Response Team is at the ready.

“We are prepared to respond if necessary. We obviously respect people’s right to peacefully protest, but if it turns into a situation where it’s no longer peaceful, then yes, we would deploy our Sheriff’s Response Team,” Norris said.

That team includes four platoons of about 100 deputies each who are fully trained in civil disobedience and mass arrest procedures, Norris explained.
...

In San Francisco, a spokesperson for the city police department urged demonstrators angered by the decision to remain peaceful.

“We ask that everyone exercising their First Amendment rights be considerate, respectful and mindful of the safety of others,” spokesperson Allison Maxie told The Post.
...
In Dallas, police spokesperson Melinda Gutierrez said officers are ready to arrest demonstrators if “any type of criminal offense” is committed against “any person or property.” She said demonstrators can also expect to be taken into custody if they attempt to shut down roadways or “illegally impede traffic.”

“The Dallas Police Department will not interfere with a lawful and peaceful assembly of any individuals or groups expressing their First Amendment rights. We will be monitoring events, and those who participate will see our patrols as they always do at large events,” Gutierrez said.
...
Police departments in Houston, Orlando, Miami and Ft. Lauderdale noted they have additional resources at the ready should it become necessary.

Thanks,

-Smac