Center for Bioethics and Social Justice, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2023 Jul;32(3):310-322. doi: 10.1017/S0963180122000822. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
John Rawls has held up as a model of public reason the U.S. Supreme Court. I argue that the Court is justifiably criticized for failing to respect public reason. First, the entire opinion is governed by an originalist ideological logic almost entirely incongruent with public reason in a liberal, pluralistic, democratic society. Second, Alito's emphasis on "ordered liberty" seems completely at odds with the "disordered liberty" regarding abortion already evident among the states. Third, describing the embryo/fetus from conception until birth as an "unborn human being" begs the question of the legal status of the embryo/fetus, as if an settled the matter. Fourth, Alito accuses the court of failing to exercise judicial restraint, although Alito argued to overturn in its entirety. In brief, the opinion is an illiberal, disingenuous, ideological swamp that swallows up public reason and the reproductive rights of women.
罗尔斯被视为公共理性的典范，而我认为，最高法院有理由因其未能尊重公共理性而受到批评。首先，整个意见受原旨主义意识形态逻辑的支配，这种逻辑几乎完全与自由、多元民主社会中的公共理性不一致。其次，阿利托对“有序的自由”的强调似乎与各州已经明显存在的“无序的自由”完全相悖，这涉及到堕胎问题。第三，将胚胎/胎儿从受孕到出生描述为“未出生的人类”，这使得胚胎/胎儿的法律地位成为一个悬而未决的问题，就好像这一描述已经解决了这个问题。第四，阿利托指责最高法院未能行使司法克制，尽管阿利托主张完全推翻罗诉韦德案。简而言之，这一意见是一个不自由、不真诚、充满意识形态偏见的沼泽，吞噬了公共理性和妇女的生殖权利。
