评论
打印
The clash between contraceptive coverage and claims of conscience is a key battleground in the culture wars,
避孕保险和良知主张之间的冲突堪称文化战争中的一大关键战场，
and the Supreme Court's decision is likely to mobilize voters on both sides of the divide.
分歧双方的选民或许都会因为最高法院的裁决有所行动。
For opponents of the regulation, the decision to uphold it was especially disappointing
在反对这一规定的人看来，维持原规定的决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.
最高法院的两名自由派法官，大法官埃琳娜·卡根和斯蒂芬·G·布雷耶投票时也选择了和多数派（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的票选结果裁定要求家族企业提供避孕保险违反了保护宗教自由的联邦法律时，
that requiring family-owned corporations to provide contraceptive coverage violated a federal law protecting religious freedom.
两名大法官都是持反对意见的。
On Wednesday, in a concurring opinion written by Justice Kagan,
周三，二人在大法官卡根撰写的一份协同意见书中表示，
they said that the Affordable Care Act itself authorized regulators to create exemptions for employers with religious objections,
《平价医疗法案》原本就已授权监管部门，允许他们为对该法案持宗教反对意见的用人单位破例，
noting that the Obama administration had adopted one limited to houses of worship.
他们提到，奥巴马政府通过过一项适用范围仅限于礼拜场所的法案。
Whether the Trump administration had provided adequate justifications for its much broader exemption, Justice Kagan wrote, was a question for another day.
大法官卡根写道，特朗普政府是否为其更普遍的豁免规定提供了足够的理由则属于另一个问题。
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five more conservative members of the court,
大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯，在为最高法院较为保守的五名成员撰文时赞同了卡根二人的说法，
agreed that the Affordable Care Act had authorized regulators
表示《平价医疗法案》确已授权监管机构，允许其
"to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections."
“为持宗教信仰或道德异议的用人单位破例，使其不受义务提供避孕保险规定的约束。”
But, unlike Justice Kagan, he did not suggest that the regulation remained vulnerable to a new legal challenge.
不过，他没有像卡根大法官那样暗示，这项规定仍会容易遭遇新的法律挑战。
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had given religious belief too much power.
就反对维持原规定的声音来看，大法官露丝·巴德·金斯伯格和大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔均表示，多数派已经过于纵容宗教信仰。
"In accommodating claims of religious freedom, this court has taken a balanced approach,
“面对宗教自由的主张时，本法庭采取的是较为平衡的方式，
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.
是不允许部分人的宗教信仰凌驾于其他不认同这些信仰的人的权益之上的方式，”她写道。
"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，最高法院破天荒地彻底放弃了反补贴权益，开始热衷于极力保护宗教权利了。”
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
