双重认定：堕胎法案遭遇医生质疑

Doctor fights abortion law, criminal charges
堕胎法案遭遇医生质疑
The Kansas statute requires physicians to obtain a referral from an independent doctor before they can perform a late-term abortion.
堪萨斯州的法律规定医师需要获得一个地位独立的医生的介绍，才能执行
妊娠晚期堕胎术。
A Wichita, Kan.,family physician is challeng a state law that requires a second opinion for late-term abortions, saying it interferes with doctors' medical judgment and restricts women's access to the procedures.
一个家庭医生Wichita. Kan反对该州法规，该法规要求医生必须在向另一个医生咨询，并获得同意后才能执行妊娠晚期的堕胎术, Wichita. Kan说它干扰医生们的判断力，并侵犯了妇女的堕胎权力。
In June, Kansas Attorney General Paul J. Morrison criminally charged George Tiller, MD, with violating a 1998 statute that prohibits physicians from performing late-term abortions without first getting a documented referral from a second doctor \"not legally or financially affiliated\" with the physician doing the procedure.
6月, 堪萨斯州检察长Paul J. Morrison 指控医生George Tiller，认为他违反了一条1998年制定的法令，该法令禁止医师在没有获得另一个医生（无法律或经济上的附属关系）的书面证明的情况下在妊娠晚期执行堕胎手术。
Both doctors must agree that the abortion is necessary to preserve the mother's life or that continuing the pregnancy will cause her \"substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.\" The law includes an exception for medical emergencies.
除了临床上的紧急情况，必须有两个医生都认为：为了保住母亲的性命必须堕胎，或者继续怀孕会导致母亲机体功能重大的、不可逆的损伤，才能行堕胎术。
The state alleges that Dr. Tiller and family physician Ann K. Neuhaus, MD, were not \"independent\" when they consulted on 19 different late-term abortion procedures. Dr. Neuhaus is not being charged in the case. Both doctors have publicly denied the allegations. Dr. Tiller's attorney declined to comment for this story. Dr. Neuhaus could not be reached for a response.
But in court documents, Dr. Tiller argues that the law is \"an unconstitutional limitation on a physician's judgment and an undue burden on a woman's rights\" to abortion.
官方宣称Tiller医生和家庭医生Ann K. Neuhaus, MD，的关系并不独立，但他们却在19例妊娠晚期的堕胎术前为对方出示证明。检察长没有起诉Neuhaus医生。两个医生都公然否认指控。Tiller's 医生的辩护律师拒绝评论这件事，目前无法联系到Neuhaus 医生，以询问她对此事的反应。但在法庭的文件中,Tiller 博士辩解认为, 针对堕胎的这条法令违反了宪法，该法令限制了医生的诊断权力，并对妇女的堕胎权力添加很大的压力。
He points to a 1973 Supreme Court decision in Doe v. Bolton, in which justices struck down a Georgia law requiring three doctors and a hospital staff committee to approve an abortion procedure, except in cases of rape or immediately life-threatening injury to the pregnant woman. The high court said the law infringed on a physician's right to practice medicine and patients' right to be safeguarded by their doctors.
他引用最高法院1973在Doe v. Bolton一案中的判决,在该案中正义击败了乔治亚州法律，该法律要求除了在强奸或威胁孕妇生命的紧急损伤的情况外，必须有三个医生和医院职员委员会批准，才能实行堕胎。高等法院认为该法律侵犯了医生的行医权力和病人接受医生保护的权力。
Dr. Tiller also claims that the Kansas statute is vague. Doctors are subject to criminal sanctions under the measure, but without requiring any proof of criminal intent, Dr. Tiller's brief states. Doctors can face up to one year in prison and $2,500 in fines per violation. He is asking the Sedgwick County trial court to overturn the law.
State officials, on the other hand, have pledged to defend it. They declined to comment further.
同时Tiller 博士声称堪萨斯法规的意义是含糊不清的，他在摘要中指出：仅根据该法规，而没有确切证实犯罪动机的情况下，医生就被认为有罪，并受到制裁。每一次的违章行为都会使医生被监禁一年并罚款2,500美元。他要求Sedgwick 县审判法庭推翻该法律。
另一方面,州里的官员宣称要保护该法规，并拒绝进一步的评论。
In court papers, the state contends that the law is straightforward. The term \"legally affiliated\" denotes a formal business relationship, such as doctors who are part of the same corporation or who practice together in a partnership, the state's brief says. But the statute also conveys that doctors cannot rely on the referral of a physician \"whom they pay or who otherwise has a financial stake in the abortion provider's practice,\" the state adds. \"There is no guesswork involved. ... Under no reasonable construction of the Kansas law is there any sort of trap for a Kansas physician acting in good faith.\"
在法庭资料里，堪萨斯州官方坚持认为该法律是正确的。官方在摘要中指出\"法律上的附属关系\"表示的就是一个正式的业务关系, 譬如是在同一个法人团体工作的医生或者或作为搭档一起行医的医生。并补充道：该法令也规定堕胎时收受金钱或其他经济利益的医生，他们的参考意见不能作为堕胎的依据。“很明显，没有任何理由说明堪萨斯州的法律为该州信誉良好的医生行医设置障碍.\"
But Dr. Tiller disagrees, saying none of those definitions describe his relationship with Dr. Neuhaus. The two doctors are not part of the same practice, nor did Dr. Tiller pay Dr. Neuhaus for her travel or other services, according to his brief.
但Tiller 博士不同意, 他在摘要里说：他与Neuhaus 医生的关系不符合上述的那些定义。他们两个不是行医的搭档,Tiller 医生也没有为Neuhaus医生支付旅行或其它服务。