評論
打印
The clash between contraceptive coverage and claims of conscience is a key battleground in the culture wars,
避孕保險和良知主張之間的沖突堪稱文化戰爭中的一大關鍵戰場，
and the Supreme Court's decision is likely to mobilize voters on both sides of the divide.
分歧雙方的選民或許都會因為最高法院的裁決有所行動。
For opponents of the regulation, the decision to uphold it was especially disappointing
在反對這一規定的人看來，維持原規定的決定尤其令人失望的地方在于
because two members of the court's liberal wing, Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer, voted with the majority.
最高法院的兩名自由派法官，大法官埃琳娜·卡根和斯蒂芬·G·布雷耶投票時也選擇了和多數派（即保守派）站在一起。
Both justices had been in dissent in 2014, when the court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision
2014年最高法院以5:4的票選結果裁定要求家族企業提供避孕保險違反了保護宗教自由的聯邦法律時，
that requiring family-owned corporations to provide contraceptive coverage violated a federal law protecting religious freedom.
兩名大法官都是持反對意見的。
On Wednesday, in a concurring opinion written by Justice Kagan,
周三，二人在大法官卡根撰寫的一份協同意見書中表示，
they said that the Affordable Care Act itself authorized regulators to create exemptions for employers with religious objections,
《平價醫療法案》原本就已授權監管部門，允許他們為對該法案持宗教反對意見的用人單位破例，
noting that the Obama administration had adopted one limited to houses of worship.
他們提到，奧巴馬政府通過過一項適用范圍僅限于禮拜場所的法案。
Whether the Trump administration had provided adequate justifications for its much broader exemption, Justice Kagan wrote, was a question for another day.
大法官卡根寫道，特朗普政府是否為其更普遍的豁免規定提供了足夠的理由則屬于另一個問題。
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five more conservative members of the court,
大法官克拉倫斯·托馬斯，在為最高法院較為保守的五名成員撰文時贊同了卡根二人的說法，
agreed that the Affordable Care Act had authorized regulators
表示《平價醫療法案》確已授權監管機構，允許其
"to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections."
“為持宗教信仰或道德異議的用人單位破例，使其不受義務提供避孕保險規定的約束。”
But, unlike Justice Kagan, he did not suggest that the regulation remained vulnerable to a new legal challenge.
不過，他沒有像卡根大法官那樣暗示，這項規定仍會容易遭遇新的法律挑戰。
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had given religious belief too much power.
就反對維持原規定的聲音來看，大法官露絲·巴德·金斯伯格和大法官索尼婭·索托馬約爾均表示，多數派已經過于縱容宗教信仰。
"In accommodating claims of religious freedom, this court has taken a balanced approach,
“面對宗教自由的主張時，本法庭采取的是較為平衡的方式，
one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs," she wrote.
是不允許部分人的宗教信仰凌駕于其他不認同這些信仰的人的權益之上的方式，”她寫道。
"Today, for the first time, the court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree."
今天，最高法院破天荒地徹底放棄了反補貼權益，開始熱衷于極力保護宗教權利了?！?/p>
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
