Gold J A
Am J Law Med. 1980 Fall;6(3):361-72.
In Harris v. McRae, the recent case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, the Court for the first time was asked to consider whether antiabortion legislation respects the establishment of religion or violates the free exercise thereof. The Court held that the Amendment did not effect an establishment of religion, and found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to raise the free exercise argument. The writer explores the questions raised, agreeing with the Court's disposal of the establishment argument. He does find considerable validity in the free exercise challenge, but concludes that the Court as presently constituted is unlikely to accept it. In addition, he believes that the Court, in its treatment of both arguments, either ignored or improperly distinguished earlier cases that supported the plaintiffs.
在哈里斯诉麦克雷案中，美国最高法院维持了海德修正案的合宪性，这是近期的一个案件。在该案中，最高法院首次被要求考虑反堕胎立法是否尊重宗教确立条款或侵犯宗教信仰自由条款。最高法院认为该修正案并未确立宗教，并认定原告没有资格提出宗教信仰自由的论点。作者探讨了由此引发的问题，认同最高法院对确立条款论点的处理方式。他确实发现宗教信仰自由挑战具有相当的合理性，但得出结论认为，以目前的组成来看，最高法院不太可能接受这一挑战。此外，他认为，最高法院在处理这两个论点时，要么忽视了要么不恰当地区分了支持原告的早期案例。
