大法官塞缪尔·阿利托在宣传新书时接受采访时表示，他推翻堕胎权的观点不会导致推翻同性婚姻。
During an interview while promoting his new book, Justice Samuel Alito said that his opinion overturning abortion rights won’t lead to overturning same-sex marriage.
他很可能是对的。但他为结论提供的推理未能面对2022年多布斯推翻罗伊诉韦德案裁决的现实。
He may well be correct about that. But the reasoning he offered for his conclusion fails to confront the reality of the 2022 Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.
他告诉采访者、哥伦比亚广播公司新闻的扬·克劳福德：“奥伯格菲尔案的决定在各种方面受到了很大的依赖。”他指的是2015年的裁决，该裁决批准了同性婚姻权，而包括阿利托。
“There was a lot of reliance in various ways on the decision in Obergefell,” he told his interviewer, Jan Crawford of CBS News, referring to the 2015 ruling that approved same-sex marriage rights over the dissent of four justices, including Alito.
克劳福德指出，人们长期以来一直依赖罗伊作为既定法律。但共和党任命的法官试图做出区分。
Crawford pointed out that people had long relied on Roe as settled law. But the GOP-appointed justice attempted to draw a distinction.
阿利托在采访中说：“奥伯格菲尔事件之后，同性结婚并签订了合同……这要具体得多。”“而罗伊的论点是，它对人们的想法产生了影响，妇女对她们将要生活的社会的想法，这将对社会产生影响。如果我们被要求推翻奥伯格菲尔的裁决，这比所涉及的内容要抽象得多。”
“After Obergefell, people of the same sex got married and entered into contracts … it was much more concrete,” Alito said in the interview. “Whereas with Roe, the argument was made that it had an effect on people’s ideas, women’s ideas about the kind of society that they were going to live in, that this would have an effect on the society. It was much more abstract than what would’ve been involved had we been asked to overrule Obergefell.”
但多布斯夫妇的异议者直接反驳了这样的观点，即该案中所涉及的权利绝非具体的。在现已退休的大法官斯蒂芬·布雷耶（Stephen Breyer）、大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔（Sonia Sotomayor）和埃琳娜·卡根（Elena Kagan）罕见的联合异议中，三人回应了Alito多数派的主张，即对堕胎权的依赖利益“太‘无形’，法院无法考虑。”
But the Dobbs dissenters directly confronted the proposition that the rights at issue in that case were anything but concrete. In the rare joint dissent from now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the trio responded to the Alito-authored majority’s claim that the reliance interests on abortion rights “are too ‘intangible’ for the Court to consider.”
持不同意见的人表示，大多数人采取这一立场“就是忽视我们作为法官所知道的男人和女人”。他们引用了1992年计划生育协会诉凯西案的裁决，该裁决在1973年罗伊裁决后保留了堕胎权。
The dissenters said that for the majority to take that position “is to ignore as judges what we know as men and women.”“The interests women have in Roe and Casey are perfectly, viscerally concrete,” they said, citing the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that preserved abortion rights following the 1973 Roe ruling.
反对者说：“与罗伊担任保障员时相比，无数女性现在在职业、教育、人际关系以及是否尝试怀孕方面做出了不同的决定。”“其他女性将怀孕到足月，承担所有费用和伤害风险，而她们之前会选择堕胎。对于数百万女性来说，罗伊和凯西在让她们控制自己的身体和生活方面发挥了至关重要的作用。我们对今天的决定将造成的苦难视而不见，并不会让这种苦难消失。”
“Countless women will now make different decisions about careers, education, relationships, and whether to try to become pregnant than they would have when Roe served as a backstop,” the dissenters said. “Other women will carry pregnancies to term, with all the costs and risk of harm that involves, when they would previously have chosen to obtain an abortion. For millions of women, Roe and Casey have been critical in giving them control of their bodies and their lives. Closing our eyes to the suffering today’s decision will impose will not make that suffering disappear.”
同样，这并不意味着法院会推翻奥伯格菲尔案，即使今天的大多数法官如果在2015年担任法官，他们会对此案做出不同的裁决。就在去年，法院驳回了一份要求其考虑放弃同性婚姻先例的请愿书。
Again, that doesn’t mean the court will overturn Obergefell, even if a majority of today’s justices would have decided the case differently had they been on the bench in 2015. Just last year, the court rejected a petition that asked it to consider ditching the same-sex marriage precedent.
但在试图区分奥伯格菲尔和罗伊时，阿利托继续尽量减少他的多布斯观点对现实生活的影响。
But in attempting to distinguish Obergefell from Roe, Alito continues to minimize the real-life impact of his Dobbs opinion.