如果罗诉韦德案真的被推翻,如何继续争取堕胎权利?_OK阅读网
双语新闻
Bilingual News


双语对照阅读
分级系列阅读
智能辅助阅读
在线英语学习
首页 |  双语新闻 |  双语读物 |  双语名著 | 
[英文] [中文] [双语对照] [双语交替]    []        


如果罗诉韦德案真的被推翻,如何继续争取堕胎权利?
Roe Inspired Activists Worldwide, Who May Be Rethinking Strategy

来源:纽约时报    2022-05-05 06:13



        The draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade that leaked Monday night is not yet final. But when the dust settles, American women may conclude that they had lost the right to abortion the same way that an Ernest Hemingway character said he had gone bankrupt: gradually, and then suddenly.        周一晚间泄露的最高法院推翻罗诉韦德案的意见书草案并非最终版本。但待尘埃落定时,美国的女性可能会得出结论,她们已经失去了堕胎的权利,就像海明威笔下的一个人物形容他的破产一样:先是逐渐地,然后突然就身无分文了。
        If anything like the leaked draft becomes law, it will be the result not just of decades of campaigning, litigating and nominating of conservative judges by anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies, but also of a single decision that reverses the establishment of a constitutional right that had inspired abortion-rights campaigners around the world.        如果类似泄露草案那样的意见成为了法律,将不仅仅是反堕胎团体及其共和党盟友数十年竞选、诉讼和提名保守派法官的结果,同时这也是在用一项单一的裁决推翻已经确立的宪法权利,该权利曾令世界各地的堕胎权利活动人士振奋不已。
        So the opinion also raises a question relevant to activists everywhere: Is seeking protection for abortion rights through courts, rather than building the kind of mass movement that can power legislative victories, a riskier strategy than it once seemed?        因此,这个意见稿也提出了一个与各地的活动人士息息相关的问题:通过法院寻求堕胎权的保护,而不是建立那种能够推动立法胜利的群众运动,这个策略的风险是不是比当初看到的要更大?
        Roe’s surprising politics        出人意料的罗案政治
        It is hard to imagine now, but at the time Roe v. Wade was decided, in 1973, abortion was not a major issue for the American right, or even for evangelical Christians.        现在很难想像,但在1973年罗诉韦德案作出裁决的时候,堕胎对美国右翼来说并不是一个主要问题,甚至对福音派基督徒来说也不是。
        In fact, two years before Roe, the Southern Baptist Convention voted for a resolution calling for abortion to be legalized. And though both parties were split on the issue, opposition to abortion was most associated with Catholics, who tended to vote Democratic.        事实上,在罗案发生的两年前,南方浸信会投票通过了一项呼吁将堕胎合法化的决议。尽管两党在这一问题上存在分歧,但反对堕胎者当中以天主教徒为主,而他们倾向于投票给民主党。
        But just a few years later, that had changed. The shift was not spurred by abortion itself, but by desegregation. After the Supreme Court ordered schools in the South to desegregate, many white parents pulled their children from public schools and sent them to all-white private schools known as segregation academies. After further litigation by Black parents, the I.R.S. revoked those schools’ tax-exempt status, provoking widespread anger among white evangelical Christians and catalyzing their new role as a powerful conservative force in American politics.        但没过几年,情况就发生了变化。这种转变并非由堕胎本身推动,而是由废除种族隔离引发。在最高法院下令南方的学校废除种族隔离后,许多白人家长把子女从公立学校转去全白人的私立学校,也就是所谓的种族隔离学校。在黑人家长进一步提起诉讼后,国税局取消了这些学校的免税资格,这在白人福音派基督徒中引发了广泛的愤怒,这促使他们成为了美国政治中强大的保守派力量。
        Publicly opposing desegregation was not really socially acceptable or palatable to a broader coalition. But opposing abortion was. And abortion rights had followed a similar procedural path as Brown v. Board of Education and other civil rights cases, using impact litigation to win constitutional protections at the Supreme Court to override state laws. So criticizing Roe became a way to talk about “government overreach,” “states’ rights” and the need to “protect the family” without having to actively oppose civil rights or desegregation.        公开反对废除种族隔离的做法不为社会所接受,也不为更广泛的联盟所认可。但反对堕胎却可以。堕胎权与布朗诉教育局案以及其他民权案件的程序相似,都是利用有影响力的诉讼在最高法院赢得宪法保护,从而推翻州法律。因此,批评罗案就成为了无需极力反对民权或废除种族隔离,就可以谈论“政府越权”、“州权”和“保护家庭”必要性的方式。
        Over the years, the backlash built up more steam. But the right to abortion still seemed relatively secure, particularly after the Supreme Court reaffirmed it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. The fact that abortion rights remained protected in the United States, even in the face of growing political opposition, seemed like an argument in favor of seeking protections via the courts.        多年来,这种强烈反对越来越多。但堕胎权似乎仍然相对安全,尤其是在最高法院于1992年在计划生育协会诉凯西案中再次确认这一点之后。即使面对日益增长的政治反对,堕胎权在美国仍然受到保护,这似乎表明理应通过法院寻求保护。
        Activists in other countries have sought a similar path. In Colombia in 2006, Monica Roa, a lawyer for the feminist group Women’s Link Worldwide, won exceptions to the country’s blanket abortion ban by arguing that Colombia’s international treaty organizations, and thus its Constitution, required exceptions for rape, incest or danger to the life or health of the mother. This year, in a subsequent case, the court went further, decriminalizing all abortion before 24 weeks of gestation.        其他国家的活动人士也寻求类似的途径。2006年在哥伦比亚,女权组织全球妇女联合的律师莫妮卡·罗以哥伦比亚的国际条约组织及其宪法要求对强奸、乱伦或危及母亲生命或健康的情况进行例外处理为由,在该国全面禁止堕胎的情况下赢得了例外权利。今年,在随后的一个案件中,法院更进一步,将所有怀孕24周之前的堕胎合法化。
        Pursuing the issue via the courts allowed activists to partly circumvent the contentious politics around the issue, said Julie Zulver, a political anthropologist who studied activism around reproductive rights in Colombia. “During the peace process, everything got polarized,” she said.        政治人类学家朱莉·祖尔弗在哥伦比亚研究围绕生殖权利的行动主义,他说,通过法院追究这一问题,让活动者可以部分规避围绕该问题的有争议的政治。“在和平进程中,一切都变得两极化,”她说。
        In 2016, the government held a referendum on a peace agreement with the FARC guerrilla group. To undermine public support for the deal, conservative politicians, including former President Álvaro Uribe, sought to associate the draft agreement with abortion, gender education in schools and other contentious social issues.        2016年,哥伦比亚政府就与FARC游击队的和平协议举行了全民公投。为了削弱公众对该协议的支持,包括前总统阿尔瓦罗·乌里韦在内的保守派政客试图将协议草案与堕胎、学校的性别教育和其他有争议的社会问题联系起来。
        “As soon as the peace referendum started going through, it was like, if you’re voting yes to this peace referendum, you’re voting to turn your children gay, you’re voting against the nation. You’re voting against the idea of the nation and the family. And lumped into that are issues like women’s rights or access to reproductive rights,” Dr. Zulver said.        “一旦和平公投开始进行,就变成了,如果你这次投赞成票,你就是在投票让你的孩子变成同性恋,你就是在投票反对国家。你投票反对国家和家庭的理念。其中掺杂了女性权利或获得生殖权利等问题,”祖尔弗说。
        In Mexico, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been fiery in his opposition to the Mexican feminist movement, which he views as hostile opposition to his populist administration. But after years of grass-roots organizing by the movement, the country’s Supreme Court decriminalized abortion in 2021.        在墨西哥,总统安德烈斯·曼努埃尔·洛佩斯·奥夫拉多尔一直激烈反对墨西哥女权运动,他认为该运动对他的民粹主义政府充满敌意。但经过多年的基层组织,该国最高法院于2021年将堕胎合法化。
        Courts are the catch        法庭靠不住
        But just as Roe’s passage and ability to withstand opposition seemed to map out a path to abortion protection, its likely fall now highlights a potential weakness of judicial protection: It is inherently dependent on the makeup of the courts. And over time, that can change.        但正如罗案的通过和抵御反对的能力似乎为堕胎保护规划了一条道路,它现在可能会遭受的失败凸显了司法保护的一个潜在弱点:它本质上取决于法庭的构成。随着时间的推移,这种构成是会变的。
        In the United States, Republican voters’ opposition to abortion helped fuel a decades-long effort to appoint and elect conservative judges at all levels of the judicial system. Today, the result is a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court that not only looks set to overturn Roe, but that has also swung sharply to the right on other issues, including voting rights.        在美国,共和党选民对堕胎的反对推动了数十年来在司法系统各级任命和选举保守派法官的努力。结果,如今最高法院的保守派绝对多数不仅看起来要推翻罗案,而且在包括投票权在内的其他问题上也急剧右倾。
        In Poland, when the far-right nationalist government failed to get a restrictive abortion law through Parliament, it turned instead to the constitutional tribunal, which was stacked with justices friendly to the governing Law and Justice party. In October 2020, the tribunal effectively enshrined the failed legislation into constitutional law.        在波兰,未能在议会上通过限制性堕胎法的极右翼民族主义政府转而求助于宪法法庭,那里有许多对执政的法律与公正党友好的法官。2020年10月,法庭有效地将失败的立法写入宪法。
        Sometimes litigation simply fizzles. In 2010, many thought that a challenge to Irish abortion restrictions in the European Court of Human Rights might become a Roe for Europe. But the court issued only a narrow procedural decision instead.        有时,诉讼本身就失败了。2010年,许多人认为,在欧洲人权法院对爱尔兰的堕胎限制提出挑战可能会成为欧洲的罗案。但法院只作出了一个适用性有限的程序决定。
        Activism after all        还是得行动
        In the end, it may come down to activism after all. And around the world, a pattern has emerged: successful campaigns treat abortion as part of broader questions of national identity, and rest on sustained organizing by experienced activists.        最终可能还是要靠行动主义。在世界范围内,出现了一种模式:成功的运动将堕胎视为更广泛的国家认同问题的一部分,并依赖于经验丰富的活动人士持续组织。
        In Ireland in 2012, the death of a young woman named Savita Halappanavar who had been denied a medically necessary abortion became a rallying cry for the abortion rights movement. In 2018, the country held a referendum to change the Constitution to legalize abortion, which passed with over 66 percent support.        2012年,在爱尔兰,一位名叫萨维塔·哈拉帕纳瓦尔的年轻女性因为被拒绝进行医学上必要的堕胎而身亡,她的死成为堕胎权利运动的集结口号。2018年,该国举行了修改宪法使堕胎合法化的全民公投,以超过66%的支持率通过。
        As in Colombia, Irish activists sought to frame the abortion issue as a matter of national and social identity. But this time, the dynamic was reversed: In Ireland, the most successful identity argument was made by the side arguing in favor of abortion rights, framing reproductive rights as part of Ireland’s European identity.        与哥伦比亚一样,爱尔兰活动人士试图将堕胎问题归结为国家和社会认同的问题。但这一次,情况发生了逆转:在爱尔兰,最成功的身份认同主张是支持堕胎权的一方提出的,他们将生育权利界定为爱尔兰的欧洲身份的一部分。
        “The framing around Ireland’s abortion rights campaign was about compassion, and how Ireland has to be the compassionate face of Europe,” said Marie Berry, a University of Denver political scientist who has studied the Irish campaign. “That it is more compassionate than the U.K., as the U.K. became more and more conservative, especially under Tory government. That we’re in the E.U., we represent a progressive Europe.”        “围绕爱尔兰堕胎权运动的框架是关于同情心,以及爱尔兰必须成为欧洲同情心的表率,”研究过爱尔兰堕胎权运动的丹佛大学政治学家玛丽·贝里说。“它比英国更富有同情心,因为英国变得越来越保守,尤其是在保守党政府的领导下。而我们身处欧盟,代表着一个进步的欧洲。”
        But the key to the movement’s success may have been combining that appealing message with the organizing experience of more radical feminist groups. “What shocked me when I was doing research with activists there was that actually, the organizing node of the whole abortion rights ‘Repeal the 8th’ campaign came from anarcho-feminist movements, which were more rooted in environmental movements than the liberal women’s rights movement,” Dr. Berry said. “The bulk of the people who voted for it, of course, were not affiliated with the more leftist organizing nodes. But that was really the heart of the movement that made it happen.”        但是,这场运动成功的关键可能在于,它将这种有吸引力的信息与更激进的女权主义团体组织经验结合起来。“当我在爱尔兰与活动人士一起做研究时,让我震惊的是,关于堕胎权的整个‘废除第8条’运动的组织节点,实际上来自于无政府女权运动,它比自由主义女权运动更深地植根于环保运动,”贝里说。“当然,大多数投票支持的人并不属于更左派的组织节点。但这确实是让一切成为可能的运动的核心。”
        In Argentina, the Ni Una Menos (“Not one woman less”) movement also combined sustained, long-term organizing with framing that situated abortion rights in the broader context of a just society, presenting the lack of access to safe, legal abortion as just one part of the broader problem of violence against women. A 2018 bill to legalize the procedure failed, but in 2020, the country legalized abortion, making Argentina the largest country in Latin America to do so.        在阿根廷,“Ni Una Menos”(“一个女人也不能少”)运动也是这样,在持续、长期的组织活动中,将堕胎权利置于公正社会的大背景下,宣传缺乏安全合法的堕胎属于暴力侵害妇女这一更广泛的问题。2018年,一项使堕胎合法化的法案失败了,但在2020年,阿根廷实现了堕胎合法化,使阿根廷成为拉丁美洲实现堕胎合法化的最大国家。
        In the United States, by contrast, legal abortion has been the status quo since the Roe decision in 1973, which made it a difficult target for that kind of sustained mass organizing.        相比之下,在美国,自1973年罗案裁决以来,合法堕胎一直是现状,使它很难成为这种长期群众组织的目标。
        “I think the indigenous mobilizing, some of the more progressive kind of racial justice work, Occupy, all of the kind of the leftist nodes within those movements, haven’t centered abortion in their advocacy because it has been, constitutionally, more or less a solved issue since the 70s,” Berry said. And for other organizations focused on the intersection of reproductive rights with race and class, “abortion has always been there, but it isn’t the only demand,” she said.        “我认为本土动员,一些更先进的种族平等工作,还有占领运动,所有的这些运动中的左翼节点都没有把堕胎权作为宣传的中心,因为自70年代以来,它在宪法上或多或少是一个已经解决的问题,”贝里说。对于其他关注生育权利问题与种族和阶级问题交集的组织来说,“堕胎问题一直存在,但它不是唯一的诉求,”她说。
        Centrist organizations and Democratic politicians, by contrast, have often framed abortion as a matter of unfortunate but necessary health care services that should be “safe, legal and rare,” and focused activism on issues of access. That was often vital for women in rural areas or states whose burdensome regulations had made abortion essentially unavailable in practice, but it did not generate the kind of mass, identity-based appeal that has been effective in countries like Ireland.        相反,中间派组织和民主党政治人士往往将堕胎定性为一种不幸但有必要的医疗保健服务,应该是“安全、合法和不常见的”,并将活动重点集中在如何获取堕胎医疗的问题上。对于在农村地区或一些州内的女性来说,这往往至关重要,因为那些地区繁琐的法规使堕胎在实践中基本上无法实现。但这些活动并没有产生在爱尔兰等国家行之有效的那种基于身份的大众吸引力。
        And so today, with Roe apparently on the brink of falling, American activists are considering what it will take to build their own mass movement in the style of Ni Una Menos — and what they can accomplish before it is too late.        因此,今天,随着罗案裁决显然处于被推翻的边缘,美国的活动人士正在考虑,如何才能按照“一个女人也不能少”运动那样创建自己的大规模运动——以及能在为时已晚之前还能取得什么成果。
                
   返回首页                  

OK阅读网 版权所有(C)2017 | 联系我们