好必来Hobby Lobby.doc

  1. 1、本文档共4页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
好必来Hobby Lobby

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 Obamacares 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 persons 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 the

文档评论(0)

xcs88858 + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

版权声明书
用户编号:8130065136000003

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档