abortion wars,once again

The case being argued this week before the Supreme Court may determine just how far state restrictions can go

Phyllis Woods says she's not someone you'd find picketing（监视）at an abortion clinic（诊所）or screaming in the face of an abortion-rights demonstrator（示威者）. Before her election to the New Hampshire legislature, the former credit bureau manager spent much of her time looking after real-estate loans and volunteering for Birthright, a nonpolitical organization that helps women who have unplanned pregnancies and offers them counseling （咨询服务）on options other than abortion.

菲利斯·伍兹说，她不是那种在堕胎诊所里面监视或面对堕胎权利的示威者大声尖叫的人。在她竞选新罕布什尔州立法机关之前，信用调查所经理花了她很多时间寻找房地产贷款和为Birthright做志愿工作，Birthright是一个非政治性的组织，主要帮助有意外怀孕的女性，并对她们提出放弃堕胎采取其他措施的劝告。

But in 1997, when New Hampshire lawmakers voted to repeal （废除）the few existing state restrictions on abortion, Woods, now 62, decided she wanted a public--and political--forum for her growing conviction that the procedure was too easily available（可用的有效的）in her home state. So she decided she wanted a seat at the table. "I felt the legislators were doing something wrong," she says, "and I decided to run." After being elected to the New

Hampshire House the next year, Woods made it her "singular（奇异的单一的）mission" to pass legislation limiting access to abortion in the Granite State. "I wanted to change law," she recalls, "and make a difference."

在1997年，新罕布什尔州的立法者投票决定废除现有国家对流产的限制后。伍兹，现在62岁了，希望公众和政界对她越来越坚信国家的法律程序太容易生效给予舆论支持。于是，她决定，她也要成为立法者之一。“我认为立法者有些事情做错了，”她说，“我决定有所改变。”在第二年成功入主新罕布什尔州立法机关后，伍兹把推动通过新罕布尔州限制妇女堕胎的法律作为她的‘唯一使命’。“我想改变法律，”她回忆说，“有所作为”。

Controversy（争议）. With the help of national antiabortion groups, Woods and like-minded legislators managedbarelyto get a controversial state law passed two years ago. That law requires that women under 18 seeking an abortion notify（通知）their parents; the law also subjects doctors to civil（民事）and criminal charges（指控）if parents aren't informed, even in a medical emergency when pregnancy endangers a minor's health. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over the constitutionality（合乎宪法的）of that law in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

争论。在国家反堕胎组织的帮助下，伍兹和志同道合的立法者在两年前勉强获得一个备受争议的国家法律通过权。该法律规定，18岁以下的妇女寻求堕胎帮助时必须通知他们的父母，根据这项法律，医生在怀孕危及未成年人健康的紧急情况下都没有通知家长，也要受到民事和刑事的指控。本周，美国最高法院将在新英格兰北部的艾特计划生育联合会上听取该法合宪性的辩论。

Ayotte is the court's first abortion-related case in five years, and the stakes are substantial. Whatever the court decides will have a dramatic effect on how states legislate around abortion. If the New Hampshire law is upheld（坚持原样）, states will feel free to more aggressively circumscribe（限制）the ability of women and girls to legally end a pregnancy. But if the justices vote to nullify the measure, courts and state legislatures will be obliged（强制）to weigh whether abortion restrictions would harm or pose an undue burden on women; a nullification（无效的）of the New Hampshire law would also force state abortion restrictions to include exceptions that protect the health of women. Either way, the outcome（结果）will mobilize activists on both sides，especially since the same constitutional issues might be at stake later this term if the high court agrees to hear a pending（待定的）case on "partial birth" abortion。

这是艾特法庭五年来首次处理与堕胎有关的案子，并伴随重大的

利害关系。无论法院做出如何判决，这都将对各州围绕堕胎立法产生重大的影响。如果新罕布什尔州的法律维持原样，各州会感到可以不受约束，更加严厉地限制妇女和少女的合法堕胎。但是，如果法官投票废除这一法令，法院和各州立法机关就不得不权衡对堕胎进行限制是否会对妇女造成伤害或造成不必要的负担，一个无效的新罕布什尔州的法律也将迫使包括反对堕胎的人一起来保护妇女的健康。无论哪种方式，其结果将动员双方的积极分子。如果最高法院同意审理一起未判决的“怀孕后期堕胎案”，那么之前认为的完全合乎宪法的事情也不应定站得住脚了。

The New Hampshire law, which was immediately challenged by Planned Parenthood, has never taken effect. A New Hampshire federal district court and a federal appeals court in Boston both found the law unconstitutional because it doesn't allow doctors to bypass(忽视)parental-notification and waiting-period requirements to perform abortions on minors whose health is endangered by pregnancy. Using the "undue burden" standard established by the Supreme Court in 1992 (box, below), the lower-court justices found that the law defies （蔑视）precedent（先例）by allowing a minor's health to remain in jeopardy （危险）too long.

新罕布什尔州的法律，立马受到来自计划生育联合会的挑战，并且从来没有生效过。新罕布什尔州的联邦地区法院和联邦上诉法院在

波士顿发现该法律的违宪性，因为该法律不允许医生忽视通知父母以及在堕胎等待期内向怀孕危及健康的未成年人提供必需品的要求。根据最高法院于1992年成立的“不当负担”标准，下级法院的法官发现这项法律置最高法院判例于不顾，使未成年人的健康长时间处于危险的境况之中。

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, and national antiabortion groups have filed （提出）briefs（简要概况）urging the court to reject the "undue burden" standard in favor of a separate 1987 Supreme Court precedent that seems to give state laws more leeway（回旋的余地）. Ayotte further argues that the health exception is unnecessary because the law as written allows abortions without parental notification for minors whose pregnancy may kill them and for those who can prove to a judge they are mature enough to make their own decisions.

罕布什尔州的新任总检察长凯利艾约特，美国首席司法官保罗·克莱门特，和国家的反堕胎团体提出简要议案，力劝法院拒绝“不当负担”标准并赞成1987年最高法院的判例，以便于为各州法律的出台提供更多回旋的余地。艾特进一步指出，健康例外的担心是不必要的，因为法律允许在没有通知父母的情况对怀孕危及生命的未成年人实施堕胎，只要这些人可以向法官证明他们足够成熟到做出他们自

己的决定。

Precedent（先例）. Abortion-rights advocates say that if the court upholds the New Hampshire measure it would establish a more expansive legal precedent for limiting access to abortion and could unleash wholesale rewriting of many state laws that already restrict abortion. "It would be more difficult to get access to abortion, and more women will suffer because of restrictions," says Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberty Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, whose lawyers lead the team that will argue against the law because it lacks a health exception. Courts have routinely（经常的）found the omission（忽略）of a health exception unconstitutional under the "undue burden" precedent. Supporters of the bill argue that such exceptions can be interpreted so broadly that they are tantamount to a bypass of the parental notification requirement.

先例。赞成堕胎派说，如果最高法院认可新罕布什尔的这项法律，它会建立一个影响更广阔的的法律判例，可能引发大范围的许多州已有的限制堕胎法律。“流产将更加困难，更多的妇女将遭受堕胎的限制，”路易丝梅林说。梅林是美国公民自由联盟生育自由项目的成员之一，他的律师团队将就此向法案做出辩论，因为它忽视了堕胎者的健康。法院“不正当负担”先例的准则下经常发现这一法案存在于多对堕胎者健康保护方面的疏漏之处。该法案的支持者争辩说，这种特

殊情况可以解释的很广泛，其结果无异于无视通知家长的要求。

Activists like Woods say the legislative requirement for parental notification is needed to ultimately keep the decision within a family, where they argue it belongs. However, Steven Shapiro, the ACLU' s legal director, says the bottom line is medical care: "The question is, can a state regulate abortion in a way that does not adequately protect a woman's health in a medical emergency?"

为此而奔波劳累的伍兹说，法例规定需要通知家长，最终应该在家庭内部决定。然而美国公民自由联盟的领头人史蒂芬·夏皮罗说，底线是医疗保健：“问题是，一个国家是否可以医药紧急而缺乏对妇女充分健康保护的情况下做出相应的调节。

The fervor surrounding this abortion case is even greater than usual. The Bush administration（机关）not only signed on to the case but also will help Ayotte argue that the 1987 precedent should be applied. If the court agrees, Planned Parenthood will have to prove there is "no set of circumstances" under which the New Hampshire law could be valid. Application of the 1987 precedent is rare in abortion cases, but conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have endorsed it in other cases.

围绕此案情的热情水涨船高。布什政府不仅为此向法案发言，也将帮助艾特辩论1987年的先例应该生效。如果法院同意，计划生育联合会必须证明这项新罕布什尔州法律的实施可以有缺乏“一系列条

件”。1987先例的应用很少应用在堕胎这一案例，但保守派的大法官安东宁斯卡利亚和克拉伦斯·托马斯已在其他案例中发现相关的应用。

And Scalia and Thomas may find that their argument has fresh clout. The court that eventually decides the outcome of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood will include two new conservatives appointed by President Bush: Chief Justice John G. Roberts and, in all likelihood, appeals court Judge Samuel Alito, who as a judge supported a measure that would have required in some instances that a woman seeking an abortion notify her husband.

斯卡利亚和托马斯可能会发现，他们的说法具有新的影响力。法院认为，最终的计划生育联合会的的走向决定于美国总统布什新任命的保守派首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨，和十有八九会是上诉法院法官的阿利托，阿托利作为一个法官支持这一法案，在某些情况下，一个女人寻求堕胎需要通知她的丈夫。

If confirmed, Alito would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate Republican instrumental in establishing the "undue burden" standard. Though O'Connor will still be on the bench when the case is argued this week, she is expected to retire before the justices issue their opinion on the case and thus won't have a say in its outcome. Legal experts say they won't be surprised if the court orders the controversial case reargued once a new justice is

confirmed. If that justice is Alito, says Shapiro, "his views on the case become important, if not dispositive（决定性的）." The court could also decide the case without a new judge's participation. If the vote were deadlocked 4 to 4, the justices could choose to rehear（重新审理）the case with a new judge or let the tie vote--and the lower-court decision--stand.

如果得到证实，阿利托将会取代桑德拉·戴·奥康纳，一个在建立“不正当的负担”标准方面发挥重要作用的温和的共和党人。虽然奥康纳仍然会在这一周的辩论会上担任法官，她希望在法官在这件案子发出他们自己的意见之前退休，因此他不会对本案的结果产生任何影响。法律专家说，如果这件备受争议的案子在换了新法官的情况下需要二次辩论他们将不会感到惊讶。如果新法官是阿利托，夏皮罗说，“在本案中他的意见即使不是决定性也是非常重要的”。法院也可以在没有一位新法官参与的情况下做出决定。如果投票4比4僵持不下，法官可以选择重新审理该案，或者是让4比4等票选举情况和下级法院的裁决保持下去。

As for Woods, she lost her House seat in 2004 in part, she says, because coming from Dover, in the more liberal southern end of the state, she was targeted for her antiabortion views. She is still perhaps the state's most recognized spokesperson for abortion restrictions. This week, she plans to travel to Washington to be in

the courtroom when the justices hear arguments over the law she cosponsored. "We knew that whatever we got passed would be challenged," she says. "We just couldn't imagine that it would get all the way to the Supreme Court."

至于伍兹，她说曾在2004退出法院，因为来自多佛，一个来自国家南端的会有更多自由的州部。她再一次强调他的反对堕胎的观点。她仍然希望会有很多的人为限制堕胎发言。这一周，她将会前往华盛顿并在法庭上听取由她共同主办的法律争论。“我们知道，无论我们通过何种议案都会受到质疑和挑战，”她说。“我们无法想象我们竟然以我们能做到的所有方式呈现给最高法院。”