評論
打印
Hobby Lobby
好必來
Believe it or not
信不信由你
The Supreme Court sides with religious firms against Obamacare
最高法院支持宗教性質公司反對奧巴馬醫改
TWO years ago the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. A decision on June 30th was less favourable. The Court allowed an exception to Obamacare's mandate that firms above a certain size offer their staff insurance that includes free contraception. Rarely has a decision provoked such controversy. Hillary Clinton called it “deeply disturbing” , though her husband signed the law that underpins it.
兩年前最高法院支持平價醫療法案，也就是廣為人知的奧巴馬醫改。6月30號的一個決議不是那么順利。奧巴馬醫改要求一定規模以上的公司需要給員工提供包括免費避孕在內的保險，而法院允許了一項例外情況。很少有某項決議能引起如此激烈的論戰。希拉里·克林頓稱它“讓人非常困擾”，盡管她的丈夫簽署了支持它的法律。
The case, Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, was brought by two Christian families and their businesses. The Greens own Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft shops, and Mardel, a Christian bookstore; the Hahns own Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinetmaker. Obamacare requires firms to offer their workers all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Greens and Hahns believe that four of those contraceptives, including the “morning-after pill”, are abortifacients, since they may keep a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterine wall.
伯韋爾好必來有限公司的案例是由兩個基督教家庭和他們的生意引發的。格林家族擁有好必來連鎖工藝品店，和馬代爾基督教書店；哈恩家族擁有康那斯多格木材專家家具制造。奧巴馬醫改要求公司為他們員工提供食品和藥物管理局批準的所有避孕用品。格林家族和哈恩家族認為這些避孕用品的中的四種，包括“事后避孕藥”是墮胎藥，因為它們會導致受精卵不能進入子宮壁。
The issue was not whether these highly debatable beliefs are valid, but the circumstances under which a religious objection may trump a federal law. The constitution protects the right to the “free exercise” of religion. A 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, further requires that the government “shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion” unless doing so is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling government interest. By five votes to four, the court ruled that obliging closely held firms with religious owners to pay for their employees' contraceptives violates that principle.
問題不是這些具有高度爭議性的信仰是否有效，而是宗教異議可能會勝過聯邦法律這種情況。憲法保護宗教“自由活動”的權利。1993年的一部法律宗教自由恢復法案進一步要求政府“實質上不應該干擾某個人的宗教活動”，除非這是促進強力政府利益約束最少的方法。法院以五對四的票數進行了裁決，認為強制有信仰宗教所有者的寡頭控股公司為他們的員工支付避孕用品違反了該原則。
The government had argued that Hobby Lobby could not claim to have religious beliefs because it is a for-profit corporation. “While the Greens are persons who exercise religion, there is a critical separation between the Greens and the corporation they have elected to create,” the government's lawyers insisted. A company has rights and obligations that differ from those of its owners. That includes being subject to Obamacare's employer mandate, they argued.
政府爭辯說好必來不能要求有宗教信仰，因為他是一個以營利為目的的公司。“雖然格林家族是信仰宗教的家族，但他們家族和他們創建的公司之間有著很重要的區別，”政府的律師團堅稱。公司有權利也有義務將這些與他們的所有者們區分開來。這包括服從奧巴馬醫改的雇主支付令，他們爭辯說。
The court's conservative justices disagreed. “Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control these companies,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito. If Hobby Lobby refused to cover the four contraceptives, it faced fines of up to 475m a year, which Mr Alito said clearly counted as a “substantial burden”. And the government had other, less onerous ways to provide contraception, he argued. For example, it could pay for contraception itself or include for-profit companies in an “accommodation” already made for non-profit religious organisations, such as Catholic universities. Under that accommodation, insurers cover the cost of contraception, without raising prices for employers or their workers.
法院的保守派法官們不同意這種說法。“保護像好必來、康納斯多格和馬代爾這種公司的宗教自由權就是保護擁有及管控這些公司的所有人的宗教自由，”法官塞繆爾·阿利托寫道。如果好必來拒絕覆蓋這四種避孕用品，它將面臨一年4.75億美元的罰款，而阿利托很明確地將其看做是一個“巨大的負擔”。政府有其它不那么麻煩的方法來提供避孕用品，他爭辯說。例如，它可以自己支付避孕用品或者將以營利為目的的公司包括進一個為非盈利宗教團體如天主教大學建立的“膳宿”體制中。在這種“膳宿”體制下，保險公司承擔避孕用品的費用，不用增加雇主或者員工的費用。
Mr Alito insisted that the ruling was a narrow one, applying only to closely held firms under very specific circumstances. It is unclear how the government will now ensure that women with religious employers obtain free contraception. The “accommodation” may not be viable; its legality is being challenged by separate suits. Some women may have to pay for their own contraceptives.
阿利托堅稱該裁決很狹隘，僅適用于特殊情況下的寡頭控股公司。政府如今是如何確保有宗教信仰的雇主雇傭的婦女獲得免費避孕用品尚未明確。“膳宿”體制并不可行；它的合法性受到了單獨訟案的挑戰。一些婦女不得不自己支付避孕用品。
The ruling could make it harder to enforce the Obamacare mandate that employers offer health insurance. Many firms are “closely held”, including some that employ tens of thousands of workers. These companies may now seek exemptions from other parts of the mandate.
該裁決會使奧巴馬醫改所要求的雇主提供健康保險的實施變得更加困難。許多公司都是“寡頭控股”，包括一些雇傭了數以萬計員工的公司。這些公司如今可能會尋求該命令其它部分的豁免。
On July 1st the Supreme Court ordered lower courts to revisit objections to a broader set of contraceptives, in addition to the four raised by Hobby Lobby. In future, companies might challenge Obamacare's mandate to cover immunisations, blood transfusions or medicines derived from pigs, though none has yet done so. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the decision was of “startling breadth”. Companies, she wrote, “can opt out of any law they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
最高法院于7月1號命令低級法院重溫對更廣范圍內避孕物品的異議，除了好必來提出的四種物品。未來公司可能會挑戰奧巴馬醫改對于覆蓋免疫法、輸血或來源于豬的藥物的命令，盡管這些都尚未實行。而法官露絲·金斯伯格對此抱有異議，稱該決定“幅度之廣令人吃驚”。公司，她寫道，“可以決定不遵守除了稅法之外的任何法律，只要他們認為這與他們虔誠持有的宗教信仰互不相容。”
