評(píng)論
打印
Court, 7-2, Allows Religious Opt-Out on Birth Control.
最高法院票選結(jié)果7:2，支持用人單位因?yàn)樽诮滩挥杼峁┟赓M(fèi)避孕保險(xiǎn)
By Adam Liptak
文/亞當(dāng)·利普塔克
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Trump administration regulation
周三，最高法院裁定維持特朗普政府有關(guān)用人單位需提供免費(fèi)避孕保險(xiǎn)的規(guī)定，
that lets employers with religious or moral objections limit women's access to birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act
若用人單位對(duì)《平價(jià)醫(yī)療法案》向用人單位提出的這一要求持宗教或道德異議，可選擇不提供這一福利，
and could result in as many as 126,000 women losing contraceptive coverage from their employers.
不過(guò)，這樣一來(lái)，就會(huì)有多達(dá)12.6萬(wàn)名女性失去這一福利。
The 7-to-2 decision was the latest turn in seven years of fierce litigation over the "contraception mandate,"
“避孕強(qiáng)制令”堪稱奧巴馬政府的一項(xiàng)標(biāo)志性倡議，也是特朗普政府一直試圖干涉的一項(xiàng)倡議。
a signature initiative of the Obama administration that required most employers to provide cost-free coverage for contraception
該強(qiáng)制令規(guī)定，大部分用人單位都應(yīng)為女性員工免費(fèi)提供避孕保險(xiǎn)。
and that the Trump administration has sought to limit.
七年來(lái)，最高法院就“避孕強(qiáng)制令”展開了激烈的法律爭(zhēng)執(zhí)，此次7:2的票選結(jié)果算是最新的反轉(zhuǎn)。
In a second major decision on religious rights on Wednesday,
周三，最高法院就宗教權(quán)利還做出了另一項(xiàng)重大決定。
the court ruled by another 7-to-2 vote that employment discrimination laws did not apply to teachers in religious schools.
法院再次以7比2的投票結(jié)果裁定，（反）就業(yè)歧視法不適用于宗教學(xué)校的教師。
Last week, by a 5-to-4 vote, it said state programs that provide scholarships to students in private schools may not exclude religious schools.
上周，最高法院以5:4的投票結(jié)果裁定，為私立學(xué)校學(xué)生提供獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金的州立項(xiàng)目可不排除宗教學(xué)校。
The three decisions were part of a broad examination of the relationship between church and state
小約翰·G·羅伯茨就任最高法院首席大法官的15年來(lái)，作為最高法院多數(shù)派的保守派幾乎總是選擇了和宗教團(tuán)體站在一起，
over the 15-year tenure of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
這一次，最高法院對(duì)其任期內(nèi)教會(huì)與國(guó)家的關(guān)系進(jìn)行了一次廣泛的清查，
in which the court's conservative majority has almost always sided with religious groups.
上述三個(gè)決定只是清查工作的冰山一角。
Many religious groups praised the contraception decision.
不少宗教團(tuán)體對(duì)最高法院此次的避孕福利決定都持贊揚(yáng)態(tài)度。
"The government has no business forcing pro-life and religious organizations to provide drugs and devices that can destroy life,"
“政府無(wú)權(quán)強(qiáng)迫反墮胎的宗教組織提供可能摧毀生命的藥物或工具，”
John Bursch, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement.
捍衛(wèi)自由聯(lián)盟的律師約翰·伯奇在一份聲明中說(shuō)道。
Organizations seeking to protect access to birth control and abortion denounced the ruling as an assault on women
支持避孕及墮胎權(quán)利的組織則對(duì)這項(xiàng)裁決發(fā)出了譴責(zé)，聲稱這一裁決是在攻擊女性，
that, as NARAL Pro-Choice America said on Twitter, "gave the Trump administration a green light to attack our birth control coverage."
用美國(guó)支持墮胎權(quán)組織推文中的話說(shuō)就是“給特朗普特征開通了攻擊免費(fèi)避孕保險(xiǎn)的綠燈”。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
