評論
打印
Justice Ginsburg added that the ruling would have vast practical consequences,
金斯伯格法官補充道，此次裁決或將產生極其嚴峻的現實后果，
forcing poorer women to forgo contraception or use less effective methods.
致使較為貧窮的女性放棄避孕或使用效果較差的避孕手段。
The Obama and Trump administrations have taken very different approaches to contraceptive coverage.
奧巴馬政府與特朗普政府針對避孕保險采取了截然不同的態度。
In March 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act,
奧巴馬總統先是于2010年3月簽署了《平價醫療法案》，
which includes a section that requires coverage of preventive health services and screenings for women.
在其中一節提出了要為女性（員工）提供避孕和檢查等服務的要求。
The next year, the Obama administration required employers and insurers
次年，奧巴馬政府又對用人單位和保險公司提出了
to provide women with coverage at no cost for all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
要免費為女性提供FDA認證的所有避孕服務的要求。
The regulations exempted houses of worship — including churches, temples and mosques — from the contraception requirement.
這些規定豁免了教堂、寺廟和清真寺等禮拜場所。
But nonprofit groups like schools and hospitals affiliated with religious organizations were covered.
問題是，附屬于宗教機構的學校、醫院等非營利組織仍隸屬于規定應用范疇。
Some of those groups objected to providing coverage for any of the approved forms of contraception.
部分組織對奧巴馬政府的避孕福利規定下的所有避孕形式都持反對態度。
Others objected to contraception they said was tantamount to abortion,
另外一些則對他們所謂的相當于墮胎的避孕措施表示反對，
though there are substantial questions about whether that characterization was correct as a scientific matter.
盡管從科學的角度來講，他們的說法是否屬實仍舊充滿了疑點。
The Trump administration took the side of the religious employers,
特朗普政府則選擇了和有宗教信仰的用人單位站在一起，
saying that requiring contraceptive coverage could impose a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion.
他們聲稱，提供避孕措施這一要求可能會給宗教的自由實踐帶來“沉重的負擔”。
The regulations it has promulgated made good on a campaign pledge by President Trump,
特朗普政府頒布的規定兌現了特朗普總統的競選承諾，
who has said that employers should not be "bullied by the federal government because of their religious beliefs."
即用人單位不應“因為宗教信仰而遭受聯邦政府的欺壓”。
Justice Thomas wrote that the Trump administration was entitled to adopt exemptions,
托馬斯大法官寫道，特朗普政府有權實施豁免，
as the health care statute provided regulators with "virtually unbridled discretion to decide what counts as preventive care and screenings."
因為醫療保健法規賦予了監管機構“幾乎不受任何約束的自由裁量權，他們有權決定將哪些福利視為避孕福利及檢查。”
It followed, he wrote, that regulators also had discretion "in other areas, including the ability to identify and create exemptions."
他寫道，法規還規定，監管機構也享有“其他方面的自由裁量權，包括甄別及給予豁免的權利。”
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
