纽约时报最高法院就免费避孕保险做出最新裁定(3)（打印版）

Justice Ginsburg added that the ruling would have vast practical consequences,

金斯伯格法官补充道，此次裁决或将产生极其严峻的现实后果，

forcing poorer women to forgo contraception or use less effective methods.

致使较为贫穷的女性放弃避孕或使用效果较差的避孕手段。

The Obama and Trump administrations have taken very different approaches to contraceptive coverage.

奥巴马政府与特朗普政府针对避孕保险采取了截然不同的态度。

In March 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act,

奥巴马总统先是于2010年3月签署了《平价医疗法案》，

which includes a section that requires coverage of preventive health services and screenings for women.

在其中一节提出了要为女性（员工）提供避孕和检查等服务的要求。

The next year, the Obama administration required employers and insurers

次年，奥巴马政府又对用人单位和保险公司提出了

to provide women with coverage at no cost for all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

要免费为女性提供FDA认证的所有避孕服务的要求。

The regulations exempted houses of worship — including churches, temples and mosques — from the contraception requirement.

这些规定豁免了教堂、寺庙和清真寺等礼拜场所。

But nonprofit groups like schools and hospitals affiliated with religious organizations were covered.

问题是，附属于宗教机构的学校、医院等非营利组织仍隶属于规定应用范畴。

Some of those groups objected to providing coverage for any of the approved forms of contraception.

部分组织对奥巴马政府的避孕福利规定下的所有避孕形式都持反对态度。

Others objected to contraception they said was tantamount to abortion,

另外一些则对他们所谓的相当于堕胎的避孕措施表示反对，

though there are substantial questions about whether that characterization was correct as a scientific matter.

尽管从科学的角度来讲，他们的说法是否属实仍旧充满了疑点。

The Trump administration took the side of the religious employers,

特朗普政府则选择了和有宗教信仰的用人单位站在一起，

saying that requiring contraceptive coverage could impose a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion.

他们声称，提供避孕措施这一要求可能会给宗教的自由实践带来“沉重的负担”。

The regulations it has promulgated made good on a campaign pledge by President Trump,

特朗普政府颁布的规定兑现了特朗普总统的竞选承诺，

who has said that employers should not be "bullied by the federal government because of their religious beliefs."

即用人单位不应“因为宗教信仰而遭受联邦政府的欺压”。

Justice Thomas wrote that the Trump administration was entitled to adopt exemptions,

托马斯大法官写道，特朗普政府有权实施豁免，

as the health care statute provided regulators with "virtually unbridled discretion to decide what counts as preventive care and screenings."

因为医疗保健法规赋予了监管机构“几乎不受任何约束的自由裁量权，他们有权决定将哪些福利视为避孕福利及检查。”

It followed, he wrote, that regulators also had discretion "in other areas, including the ability to identify and create exemptions."

他写道，法规还规定，监管机构也享有“其他方面的自由裁量权，包括甄别及给予豁免的权利。”