评论
打印
But legal scholars say it’s much more likely that the court would rule in a way that stops short of technically overturning Roe—while weakening the constitutional right to abortion so substantially that it’s largely hollow.
但法律学者表示，更有可能的是，最高法院会以一种不从技术上推翻Roe案的方式进行裁决，同时大幅削弱宪法规定的堕胎权，使其在很大程度上空洞化。
For example, the Justices could hold that the “viability standard”—the idea, embedded in Roe, that states cannot restrict abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb—is no longer central to the precedent.
例如，法官可以认为“生存能力标准”（Roe案件中包含的观点，即各州不能在胎儿能够在子宫外存活之前限制堕胎）不再是先例的核心。
Such a decision, while formally leaving Roe in place, would render it nearly unrecognizable.
这样的决定，虽然正式保留了Roe案件的裁决，但将使其变得几乎面目全非。
If the court allows states to ban abortion before viability, there are dozens of other abortion restrictions currently blocked or being challenged in lower courts that could be reconsidered too.
如果最高法院允许各州在胎儿存活之前禁止堕胎，那么目前还有数十项其他堕胎限制在下级法院受到阻止或挑战，最高法院也需重新考虑这些限制。
The Supreme Court could also decide that Mississippi’s law is constitutional because it allows people to access abortion prior to 15 weeks, and therefore does not present an “undue burden,” as defined by Casey.
最高法院还可以裁定密西西比州的法律符合宪法，因为该法允许人们在怀孕15周之前堕胎，因此不会带来凯西所定义的“不适当的负担”。
A decision like that would undermine the viability standard and redefine the court’s previous definition of “undue burden.”
这样的判决会破坏生存能力标准，并重新定义法院之前对“不当负担”的定义。
Whatever the court decides, legal experts say the justices may be likely to remand the case back to lower courts, asking federal judges to reconsider the law under a newly modified interpretation of Roe.
法律专家表示，无论法院做出何种裁决，法官们都可能会将此案发回下级法院，要求联邦法官根据最新修改的Roe案件说明重新考虑该法律。
Abortion-rights advocates say any ruling that does not explicitly find the Mississippi law unconstitutional amounts to a distinction without a difference.
堕胎权利倡导者表示，任何没有明确认定密西西比州法律违宪的裁决，都相当于一种没有区别的区别。
“The law has been absolutely clear for 50 years that bans on abortion before viability are unconstitutional,” says Julie Rikelman, the litigation director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, who will represent JWHO before the Supreme Court.
生殖权利中心的诉讼主任朱莉·里克曼将代表JWHO在最高法院出庭，她说:“50年来，法律一直明确规定，禁止在胎儿存活之前堕胎是违宪的。”
And any decision that creates more legal uncertainty is bad for abortion access, as it leaves clinics—most of which are already operating on a shoestring—to fight costly legal battles or temporarily shut down while judges deliberate.
任何造成更多法律不确定性的决定都不利于堕胎服务，因为这会使诊所(其中大多数已经在小额经营)打昂贵的法律战，或者在法官审议期间，被迫暂时关闭。
In recent weeks, as the Supreme Court hearing has drawn nearer, Brewer and Derzis have huddled to discuss contingency plans.
最近几周，随着最高法院听证会的临近，布鲁尔和德齐斯聚在一起讨论应急计划。
Although only 10 to 15 of the roughly 300 patients at JWHO each month request an abortion after the 15-week mark, Brewer says that if the high court allows this law to stand, she fears what laws Mississippi will pass next.
尽管JWHO大约300名患者中每个月只有10到15人在怀孕15周后要求堕胎，布鲁尔说，如果最高法院允许这项法律生效，她担心密西西比州接下来会通过什么法律。
In the meantime, Brewer is focused on the fight. The day after we spoke was a Saturday, but she planned to be at the clinic bright and early—as she always is.
与此同时，布鲁尔正专注于这场战斗。我们谈话后的第二天是星期六，但她打算像往常一样一早就去诊所。
She’s doing it for the next generation, she says, in hopes they take up the mantle for the ones who come next.
她说，她这样做是为了下一代，希望他们为再下一代担起责任。
“That’s kind of how it goes,” she says, turning her eyes briefly away from the security screen. “You have to have people to continue to fight.”
“事情就是这样的，”她说着，将视线短暂地从安全屏幕上移开。 “你必须后继有人。”
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
关注微信公众号【可可双语精读】，获取更多优质详细讲解内容。
