-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Examining the content of the leaked Supreme1 Court draft opinion and its implications
NPR's Leila Fadel talks to Carol Sanger, a professor at Columbia Law School, about the draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that could lead to Roe3 V. Wade4 being overturned.
LEILA FADEL, HOST:
We're continuing to follow the wide-ranging implications of the leaked Supreme Court opinion draft which suggests a majority of justices will overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, if the draft becomes final, abortion5 laws would be left up to the states. To further understand the content of that draft opinion and its implications, we turn now to Carol Sanger, professor of law at Columbia Law School and author of "About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy6 In The Twenty-First Century" (ph). Good morning.
CAROL SANGER: Good morning.
FADEL: So let's talk about this draft opinion. It's quite strident. Does this represent Alito's singular view, the view of the majority of the justices? How do we read this?
SANGER: I think you can read it safely as representing the view of the majority of the conservative justices. And it is indeed, as you said, strident, and it is aggressive. It starts out with one paragraph that says people feel all different sorts of ways about abortion, and then after that, it just sort of rips into Roe and Casey, the precedents8 for this case, Dobbs, and tears them apart.
FADEL: Were you surprised about the tone and language in the Alito draft? I mean, it doesn't seem at all neutral. He used terms like abortionists instead of abortion providers, and he writes, quote, "Roe was egregiously9 wrong from the start."
SANGER: That's right. And he points out that in the old days - i.e., before two days ago - we called fetuses11 potential life in Casey and in Roe. But here now we're calling them unborn children. So that's another way of rhetorically changing how we think about what this is all about.
FADEL: Now, in the draft opinion, Alito argues that nowhere in the Constitution is there language supporting the right to abortion. He states that abortion is clearly a matter to be legislated13 by the states. What kind of precedent7 would this reasoning set?
SANGER: Well, if this is to be our new law, it will feel familiar to some people who were around in the early '70s and '60s because we're returning exactly to that situation of criminal law is normally a matter decided14 by the states, and Roe v. Wade made an exception to that by saying, well, not if one of the acts that's called a crime is an actual fundamental right protected by the Constitution, which is what Roe said. Now Roe is more or less being erased15 so that there is no more federal right to make a decision about an abortion. And the common rhetoric12 had been, against Roe, well, the word privacy isn't in the Constitution. But Alito has upped the ante on that, and now he says the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. Well, that's true, but neither is the word aircraft carrier or political party or other concepts and things that may be regulated. That's not the key feature. It really is the privacy or liberty that the court acknowledged protected the right in Roe - the abortion right.
FADEL: So let's talk about privacy, this reasoning. What are the larger implications here? We heard the president reference same-sex marriage. I mean, could this go beyond abortion?
SANGER: Yes, it could. Alito tries to assure us that it won't because he said, well, none of these other areas - same-sex marriage, marriage in general, contraception - has involved a fetus10, another life. But that really - that's a convenient way to distinguish abortion from everything else. But of course, even in Roe, the court had said abortion is unique. It is a reproductive decision. It will necessarily involve pregnancy. And so it's an easy shot to use this as a distinguisher because certainly, contraception involves the idea of a possible pregnancy. He really overstates his case, I think, in many places. But it hardly matters since he's the king of the party and is really calling all the shots.
FADEL: OK. So if this draft becomes final and it says this issue is up to the states, would any federal law legislating16 abortion protections or banning them then be challenged in court?
SANGER: There could be federal legislation acknowledging and bestowing17 a right to abortion's legality. So we could have federal legislation saying abortion in the United States is a legal process. And that would codify18 the rule of Roe and that people can get it up to a certain point. What is interesting is, first of all, there aren't the votes for it politically. There aren't the 60...
FADEL: Right.
SANGER: ...Votes needed in the Senate for this. I think one other interesting thing about this decision is that because it was leaked, it appears to us as the only decision. It's all we've got to go on. If the entire decision had - was ready, with all the dissents19, we would have a much greater understanding of the weaknesses of Alito's logic20 and reasoning.
FADEL: Carol Sanger is a professor of law at Columbia Law School. Thank you so much.
SANGER: Quite welcome.
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 roe | |
n.鱼卵;獐鹿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 wade | |
v.跋涉,涉水;n.跋涉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 abortion | |
n.流产,堕胎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 pregnancy | |
n.怀孕,怀孕期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 precedent | |
n.先例,前例;惯例;adj.在前的,在先的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 precedents | |
引用单元; 范例( precedent的名词复数 ); 先前出现的事例; 前例; 先例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 egregiously | |
adv.过份地,卓越地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 fetus | |
n.胎,胎儿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 fetuses | |
n.胎,胎儿( fetus的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 rhetoric | |
n.修辞学,浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 legislated | |
v.立法,制定法律( legislate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 erased | |
v.擦掉( erase的过去式和过去分词 );抹去;清除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 legislating | |
v.立法,制定法律( legislate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 bestowing | |
砖窑中砖堆上层已烧透的砖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 codify | |
v.将法律、法规等编成法典 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 dissents | |
意见的分歧( dissent的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|