The availability of

a powerful amplification system

will be of little help

to the woman who hopes to forge,

in the last moments

before another of her sex is to have an

abortion,

a bond of concern and intimacy

that might enable her

to persuade the woman to change her mind and heart.

The counselor may wish to walk alongside

and to say, sympathetically

and as softly

as the circumstances allow,

something like: "My dear, I know what you are going through. I've been through it myself. You're not alone and you do not have to do this. There are other alternatives. Will you let me help you? May I show you a picture of what your child looks like at this stage of her human development?"

Antonin Scalia, Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 at 757. Italics mine.

So committed

is the Court to its course

that it denies these protesters,

in the face of

(what they consider to be)

one of life's gravest moral crises,

even the opportunity

to try to offer a fellow citizen

a little pamphlet,

a handheld paper,

seeking to reach a higher law.

I dissent.

Anthony Kennedy. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 at 792. Parentheses mine.

In Silverman,

for example,

we made clear that any physical invasion

of the structure of the home,

“by even a fraction of an inch,”

was too much, 365 U.S., at 512,

and there is certainly no exception

to the warrant requirement

for the officer who barely cracks open the front door

and sees nothing but the nonintimate rug

on the vestibule floor.

Antonin Scalia, Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27.

Six minutes

and nearly 10 miles

after the chase had begun,

Scott decided to attempt to terminate the episode

by employing

a “Precision Intervention Technique (‘PIT’) maneuver,

which causes the fleeing vehicle to spin to a stop.”

Having radioed his supervisor

for permission, Scott was told to

“ ‘[g]o ahead and take him out.’ ”

Instead,

Scott applied his push bumper

to the rear of respondent’s vehicle.

As a result,

respondent lost control of his vehicle,

which left the roadway,

ran down an embankment,

overturned,

and crashed.

Respondent

was badly injured and was rendered a quadriplegic.

...................

We see respondent’s vehicle

racing down narrow two-lane roads in the dead of night

at speeds that are

shockingly fast.

We see it

swerve

around more than a dozen other cars

cross

the double-yellow line

and force cars traveling in both directions

to their respective shoulders.

...................

It was respondent, after all,

who intentionally placed himself

and the public

in danger by unlawfully engaging

in the reckless

high-speed flight

that ultimately produced the choice

between two evils

that Scott confronted.

Multiple police cars,

with blue lights

flashing

and sirens

blaring

had been chasing respondent for nearly 10 miles,

but he ignored their warning to stop.

But wait, says respondent:

Couldn’t

the innocent public

equally have been protected,

and the tragic accident entirely avoided,

if the police had

simply ceased their pursuit?

Antonin Scalia, Scott v. Harris. 433 F.3d 807