passage 7 The future of Abortion自考本科英美报刊

The Future of Abortion

The court drills a crack in the foundation of Roe. By Ann McDaniel

法院在罗案基础上钻出了裂缝。

It is a debate that divides the nation, a fundamental choice between competing rights: the government's interest in protecting human life, and a woman's right to make one of the larger decisions, of her life—when, and indeed whether, to have a child.

这个辩论是举国关注的，牵扯到两种基本对立的选择：政府主张保护人的生命，妇女是否有权做自己生命中最大的一个决定，即什么时候以及是否要生下一个孩子。

Months of nervous anticipation had

right-to-lifers, pro-choicers, politicians,

lawyers and jurists—and perhaps most of all the 1. 5 million American women （who each year choose abortion as the best way to resolve their personal dilemmas）.

数个月来焦急的等待使得“要生命派，要选择派，政客，律师，法官，乃至可能150万渴望通过堕胎来解决人生困境的最佳出路的大部分妇女们备受煎熬。

Last week the Supreme Court's conservative majority spoke. In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the court upheld the constitutionality of a Missouri law （that sharply restricted the availability of publicly funded abortion services and required doctors to test for the viability of a fetus at 20 weeks, or two-thirds of the way through the

second trimester of pregnancy）.

established a woman's right to abortion, was still the law of the land, but it had been narrowed.

上周，最高法院微弱多数通过由保守党多数通过的议案。在以5票对4票通过的由最高法院院长威廉伦奎斯特起草的决定中，最高法院确认密苏里州的一项法律是合乎宪法精神的。该决定严格限制孕妇用公费进行堕胎医疗服务，并且要求医生测试怀孕20周，或者妊娠期第二个三个月阶段三分之二时胎儿的生存情况。罗诉威德一案决定，即1973年确定妇女堕胎权利具

有划时代意义的决定，仍然是美国的法律，但是它的范畴已经缩小了。

The Missouri case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, had a significance far beyond the specifics of the decision, and both sides in the 16-year war over U.S. abortion policy knew it. 密苏里这起案件，韦伯斯特对妇产医院的诉说案，所产生的影响远不止该决定几条细则那么简单，参与美国堕胎政策争论达16年之久的辩论双方都明白这一点。

For one thing, the ruling (arbitration) 仲裁represented the first real crack in the legal foundation of Roe, and the language of the majority opinion strongly suggested that the Rehnquist court hopes to scrap (abolish) Roe entirely, (The court also accepted three new

abortion cases for its 1989 -1990 term.) 其中一点，该决定展示出罗案法律基础的第一次真正的裂缝。并且大多数的意见是强烈要求伦奎斯特法庭能够完全废除罗案（该法庭在1989到1990年也接受了另外3起新堕胎案例）

For another, the court clearly invited

to experiment with new laws

（designed to -an attempt to force abortion policy out of the courts and into the political arena-

另外一点，法庭明确邀请州立法委员研究实验新可以限制自由堕胎的法令—这一行为可以把堕胎政策踢出法庭裁决，使其成为政治问题。That gambit(move) 招数delighted conservatives and opponents of abortion and it

dismayed(terrified) women's-rights activists, (who are arguably less prepared to fight the kind of state-by-state and district-by-district battle( that legislative success requires.)这一招使得保守人士和反对堕胎者非常高兴，但却让女权运动倡导者们懊恼不堪，因为这样一来，要想获得立法过程的胜利，她们必须逐个州，逐个区地进行抗议争取，这是她们不擅长，也缺乏充分准备的。

It also terrified elected officials. To some, the new era of abortion politics meant electoral tong wars with abortion as the sole litmus test of a candidate's worth—a no-win proposition for any politician whose constituency is divided on the issue."

这一决定也吓坏了当选的政府官员。对于一些

官员来说，堕胎政治进入新时代，这意味着选举的派系战，堕胎问题是对候选人价值的石蕊实验—对于自己的选民在这个问题上分为两派的政客而言，这是无法取胜的事。

The post-Roe era may live up to these nightmare predictions, or it may not, Newsweek's new poll shows that most Americans broadly support the idea of compromise, although the survey results must be read carefully. 或许罗案后时代，这些恶梦般的预测将会成为现实，也许将不会。新闻周刊最新的民意调查显示，大部分美国人广泛支持这种妥协的结果，当然这些调查结果必须谨慎对待。

Abortion advocates may be cheered by a slow

increase—from 21 percent to 29 percent since 1975 -in public support for legalizing abortion under all circumstances, and by the corresponding decrease, from 22 percent to 17 percent, in the number of Americans （who want to make abortion completely illegal）. But detailed questions on proposals to restrict abortion tell a different story.

让支持堕胎的人开心的是从1975年起，支持妇女在任何情况下可以合法堕胎的人数由21%上升到29%，与之对应的是，认为堕胎完全非法的人数由22%降到17%。但在提出的关于限制堕胎的议案中设计到的问题确展示了事情的另外一个侧面(是另外一个情况)。

The public backs（support）

of fetal viability by a 21 percent margin, and it

the use of public money or public facilities to terminate a pregnancy unless the mother's life is endangered. It also supports more stringent medical standards for abortion clinics, even if the increased costs force many clinics to close. 公众以百分之二十一的差额多数支持强制性的胎儿生存能力测试。绝大多数反对使用公家设备或者公款堕胎，除非孕妇的生命受到危及。该议案还提议要对提供堕胎服务的诊所设立更严格的医疗标准，尽管该措施会迫使很多诊所关闭。

The question now is how to devise（make, invent） a legal standard for political compromise—but there is little in last week's

decision to give politicians or lower-court judges clear guidance. 现在问题是如何给政客们的妥协制定一个法律标准—但在上周，政客和下级法院的法官们几乎没得到一丝明确的指示。

The Missouri case confirms that the Supreme Court is ready to roll back Roe v. Wade."

The plurality opinion contains language attacking the core of the Roe decision "the concept of fetal viability and the division, for medical and legal reasons- of pregnancy into three trimesters. 密苏里案进一步证实最高法院打算废弃罗诉罗德一案。大多数意见都是抨击罗案核心，即提出“胚胎生存能力以及出于医学和法律原因把妊娠期分为三个三个月的做法”

“The rigid Roe framework is hardly consistent with the notion of a Constitution case '' Rehnquist argued. And in words that chilled abortion advocates everywhere, he added, "we do not see why the state's interest in protecting human life should come into existence only at the point of (fetal) viability, and that there should therefore be a rigid line allowing state regulation (of abortion) after viability but prohibiting it before viability..."

伦奎斯特辩解道：“罗案僵硬的框架与宪法精神不大一致。”更让支持堕胎者感到震惊的是，他还说“我们真不明白，为什么国家只是在胚胎具有生存能力的时候才想到保护人类生命，并且非常僵硬地设了一条分割线，在胚胎有生存能力后限制堕胎行为，但之前确不进行任何

限制….”

Muddle chaotic, disorder at the brink: The broad import（real meaning）of this language is to scrap the philosophical basis of Roe which is precisely what abortion opponents would like. 混乱不堪的局面：这种话的真正含意便是废弃罗案的逻辑基础，这其实也是反对堕胎的人最想要的结果。

Whether the court will take that final step, however, is still unclear: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the crucial fifth vote of the conservative majority and an acknowledged critic of the Roe decision, carefully avoided the ultimate questions of the trimester system and fetal viability.

但是最高法院是否会采取最后行动，结局仍不

明朗：司法部官员Sandra Day O'Connor投了保守多数派最关键的第五票，并且他对罗案决定一直持公认的批评态度。当被问道关于孕期三个三个月和胚胎生存能力时，他巧妙的避开了该话题。

The result—a cautious muddle at the brink of new constitutional law—prompted a bristling attack by Justice Antonin Scalia, a passionate foe of abortion. 结果势必会引发一场新的宪法边缘混乱之争，这立刻遭到另外一名坚决反对堕胎的司法部高官Antonin Scalia的猛烈攻击。The Webster case "preserves a chaos that is evident to anyone who can read and count," Scalia wrote. "We can now look forward to at least another term with carts full of mail... and streets full of demonstrators urging us. .. to

follow the popular will…. "

他写道：“韦伯斯特案子“制造的混乱状况任何懂常理的人都能看出来，我们就准备在下届会议上收到数车的邮件吧，而且会有满街的示威游行者们敦促我们服从民意….”

Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe decision, was even more acidulous in his dissenting(disagreeing )opinion-司法部高官Harry Blackmun, 是罗案决议的起草者，在表示他的不同意见时更加刻薄：

Blackmun argued that the Rehnquist plurality had gone out of its way to attack the trimester concept but had failed to find a logical basis for any revision in Roe.

他说以伦奎斯特为首的多数派蓄意攻击把怀孕期分为三阶段的思想，但是又没有找到对罗案

做出修正的逻辑基础。

Rehnquit's opinion was "deceptive." he said, and tantamount(equals) to "because we say so" jurisprudence.

他们的意见是“自欺欺人”，这几乎等同于“因为我们这么说”的法学原则。

The decision "is filled with winks and nods and knowing glances to those (who would do away with Roe explicitly,)" he wrote—and though the 1973 law on abortion still stands, the signs of change "are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows. "

他还写道：“这个决定对于那些要明确废除罗案审理决定的人来说是充满了眨眼、点头和会意的瞥眼”尽管1973年通过的关于堕胎法律依然延用，对其进行修改的兆头已经是非常明显

了。这些兆头向凛冽的寒风一样让人不禁打个寒颤。

Blackmun's dissent may have been harsh, but his central argument has tremendous force. In dismissing the trimester system and the concept of fetal viability，Rehnquist left a vacuum that will be very hard to fill.

或许Blackmun 的言辞过于犀利，但他的核心思想产生了巨大的影响。伦奎斯特废除了孕期分三个阶段和胚胎生存能力概念之后，留下一个很难弥补的真空。

Roe was an attempt to balance the rights of women against the rights of the unborn—and if fetal development is no longer the standard for that balancing, some other standard must be found.

罗案试图在妇女堕胎权和胎儿生命权之间寻求一种平衡，如果胚胎发育情况都不能作为寻求该平衡的标准的话，必需寻求另外其它的标准。But what? That question, as both sides know, is what will bring the abortion war straight back to the court.

但是是什么标准呢？这个问题，交战双方都明白，肯定又会把堕胎之战拉回到法院来进行裁决。

From Newsweek, July 17, 1989.