-
Hobby Lobby
好必来
Believe it or not
信不信由你
The Supreme Court sides with religious
firms against Obamacare
最高法院支持宗教性质公司反对奥巴马医改
TWO years ago the Supreme
Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, better known
as Obamacare.
A
decision
on
June
30th
was
less
favourable.
The
Court
allowed
an
exception
to
Obamacare's
mandate that
firms above a certain size offer their staff
insurance that includes free contraception.
Rarely has a decision provoked such
controversy. Hillary Clinton called it
“
deeply
disturbing
”
,
though her husband signed the law that
underpins it.
两年前最高法院支持平价医疗
法案，也就是广为人知的奥巴马医改。
6
月
30
号的一个决议
不是那么顺利。
奥巴马医改要求一定规模以上的公司需要给员工提供包括免费避孕在内的保
险，而法院允
许了一项例外情况。很少有某项决议能引起如此激烈的论战。
希拉里·克林顿
称它“让人非常困扰”
，尽管她的丈夫签署了支持它的法律。
The case, Burwell v
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, was brought by two
Christian families and their
businesses.
The
Greens
own
Hobby
Lobby,
a
chain
of
craft
shops,
and
Mardel,
a
Christian
bookstore; the
Hahns own Conestoga Wood Specialties, a
cabinetmaker. Obamacare requires firms
to
offer
their
workers
all
contraceptives
approved
by
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration.
The
Greens and Hahns believe that four of
those contraceptives, including the
“
morning-after
pill
”
,
are
abortifacients, since they may keep a fertilised
egg from implanting in the uterine wall.
伯韦尔好必来有限公司的案例是由两个基督教家庭和他们的生
意引发的。
格林家族拥有好必
来连锁工艺品店，
和马代尔基督教书店；
哈恩家族拥有康那斯多格木材专家家具制造。
奥巴
马医改要求公司为他们员工提供食品和药物管理局批准的所有避孕用品
。
格林家族和哈恩家
族认为这些避孕用品的中的四种，包括“事
后避孕药”是堕胎药，
因为它们会导致受精卵不
能进入子宫壁。
The issue was
not whether these highly debatable beliefs are
valid, but the circumstances under
which
a
religious
objection
may
trump
a
federal
law.
The
constitution
protects
the
right
to
the
“
free
exercise
”
of
religion. A 1993 law, the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, further requires
that
the government
“
shall not
substantially burden a person's exercise of
religion
”
unless
doing
so is the least restrictive way
to advance a compelling government interest. By
five votes to four,
the court ruled
that obliging closely held firms with religious
owners to pay for their employees'
contraceptives violates that principle.
问题不是这些具有高度争议性的信仰是否有效，而是宗教异议
可能会胜过联邦法律这种情
况。宪法保护宗教“自由活动”的权利。
1993
年的一部法律宗教自由恢复法案进一步要求
政府<
/p>
“实质上不应该干扰某个人的宗教活动”
，
除非这是促进强力政府利益约束最少的方法。
法院以五对四的票数进行了裁决，
认为强制有信仰宗教所有者的寡头控股公司为他们的员工
支付避孕用品
违反了该原则。
The
government had argued that Hobby Lobby could not
claim to have religious beliefs because it
is a for-profit corporation.
“
While the Greens are
persons who exercise religion, there is a critical
separation between the Greens and the
corporation they have elected to
create,
”
the
government's
lawyers insisted. A
company has rights and obligations that differ
from those of its owners. That
includes
being subject to Obamacare's employer mandate,
they argued.
政府争辩说好必来不能要求有宗
教信仰，因为他是一个以营利为目的的公司。
“虽然格林家
族是
信仰宗教的家族，但他们家族和他们创建的公司之间有着很重要的区别，
”政府的律师<
/p>
团坚称。
公司有权利也有义务将这些与他们的所有者们区分开来。
这包括服从奥巴马医改的
雇主支付令，他们争辩说。
The court's
conservative justices disagreed.
“
Protecting the free-
exercise rights of corporations
like
Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the
religious liberty of the humans who own
and control these
companies,
”
wrote
Justice Samuel Alito. If Hobby Lobby refused to
cover the
four contraceptives, it faced
fines of up to 475m a year, which Mr Alito said
clearly counted as a
“
substantial
burden
”
. And the government
had other, less onerous ways to provide
contraception,
he argued. For example,
it could pay for contraception itself or include
for-profit companies in an
“
accommodation
”
already
made
for
non-profit
religious
organisations,
such
as
Catholic
universities. Under that accommodation,
insurers cover the cost of contraception, without
raising
prices for employers or their
workers.
法院的保守派法官们不同意这种说法。<
/p>
“保护像好必来、康纳斯多格和马代尔这种公司的宗
教自由权就是
保护拥有及管控这些公司的所有人的宗教自由，
”法官塞缪尔·阿利托写道。
如果好必来拒绝覆盖这四种避孕用品，它将面临一年
4.75
亿美元的罚款，而阿利托很明确
地将其看做是一个“巨大的负担”
。政府有其它不那么麻烦的方法来提供避孕用品，他争辩
说。
例如，
它可以自己支付避孕用品或者将以营利为目的的公司包括进一个为非盈
利宗教团
体如天主教大学建立的“膳宿”体制中。在这种“膳宿”体制下，保险公司承担
避孕用品的
费用，不用增加雇主或者员工的费用。
Mr Alito insisted that the
ruling was a narrow one, applying only to closely
held firms under very
specific
circumstances.
It
is
unclear
how
the
government
will
now
ensure
that
women
with
religious
employers
obtain
free
contraception.
The
“
accommodation
”
may
not
be
viable;
its
legality
is
being
challenged
by
separate
suits.
Some
women
may
have
to
pay
for
their
own
contraceptives.
阿利托坚称该裁决很狭隘，
仅适用于特殊情况下的寡头控股公司。
政府如今是如何确保有宗
教信仰的雇主雇佣的妇女获得免费避孕用品尚未明确。
“膳宿”体制并不可行；它的合法性
受到了单独讼案的挑战。一些妇女
不得不自己支付避孕用品。