On Tuesday evening， the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act on a voice vote. This is a simple， three-paragraph bill that would codify， for federal law purposes， the traditional definition of “born alive.” Specifically， under the bill， the terms “person，” “human being，” “child” and “individual，” whenever they appear in federal laws or regulations， will be construed to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive.” The term “born alive” is then defined as “complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother，” followed by a heartbeat， respiration， or movement of voluntary muscles.

　　This is the legal definition already incorporateed in the laws of most states.

　　At 7：39 p.m. Tuesday， the Associated Press bureau in Washington sent out a dispatch that began， “The House voted Tuesday to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman‘s body as having been ’born alive，‘ which would give the fetus full legal protection.” The term “fetus” was employed repeatedly throughout the rest of the dispatch.

　　Quickly， I and at least one other reader pointed out to the AP editor on duty that “fetus” is not an appropriate or accurate term to apply to a human infant who is entirely born and alive. If an infant is born alive prematurely， then the proper term would be “premature infant” or “premature baby，”not “fetus.” Sometimes induction of labor is used as a method of abortion， and sometimes this results in a live birth. This is sometimes referred to as a “live birth abortion.” On occasion， other abortion methods also result in live births. But a premature infant is a premature infant—and a legally protected person—regardless of how he or she reached that state.

　　Regrettably， the AP did not correct its error. Instead AP editors compounded the original error by

　　transmitting updates that contained this statement： “The legislation is aimed at an abortion procedure critics call ‘partial-birth’ in which a fetus is partially delivered before being destroyed. Thirty states and the District of Columbia already have laws against the procedure.”

　　In fact， the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act does not restrict partial-birth abortion. In a partial-birth

　　abortion， the fetus/baby is mostly delivered but the head remains in the womb while the skull is punctured—hence the name， PARTIAL-birth.

　　The fetus/baby destroyed in a PARTIAL-birth abortion has not achieved the “complete extraction or expulsion from his or her mother” required to be “born alive”under H.R. 2175. Moreover， the laws that the AP refers to are laws that define “live birth，” not laws restricting partial-birth abortion. According to the House Judiciary subcommittee that H.R. 2175 have codified the definition of “live birth” for their state-law purposes， and of these， 30 states and D.C. have codified definitions virtually identical to

　　those contained in H.R. 2175. (D.C. has never enacted a restriction on partial-birth abortion.)

　　Reading Comprehension

　　1. What does the first paragraph mainly talk about?

　　[A] A new bill has been passed by the Home.

　　[B] The bill would be codified.

　　[C] The term “born alive” has a new definition.

　　[D] There are many debates about the bill.

　　2. What did the author probably mean by his saying， “This is the legal definition already incorporated in the laws of most states.”?

　　[A] The bill should come earlier.

　　[B] A lot of states have already adopted the definition in their laws.

　　[C] It will affect the federal laws.

　　[D] Both B and C.

　　3. Read paragraph 4 carefully and then point out that why did the author think that “fetus” is not a fitted word to describe that especially situation?

　　[A] An infant is alive but a fetus is not.

　　[B] The word “fetus” is not an accurate term.

　　[C] When you use the word “fetus”， there is something discrimination in your talk.

　　[D] “Fetus” is not considered as a real person but when you use the word “infant” to describe someone he or she is a real one who alive.

　　4. According to your understanding， what does partial-birth mean?

　　[A] It indicated the situation that an infant was failed to born.

　　[B] A method of abortion.

　　[C] An unsuccessful born of a child.

　　[D] Dystocia.

　　5. What did the Associated Press think about the live-born human infant ?

　　[A] They thought that the live-born human infant was still a fetus.

　　[B] They didn‘t think that the live-born human infant was still a fetus.

　　[C] They have no idea about the definition of a live-born human infant.

　　[D] They thought it was bloody to use the partial-born method to the fetus.

　　答案与题解

　　1. [C] 仔细阅读文中第一段可以发现，该段讲述国会通过新法案重点是从法案的影响上来谈的。其影响就是会对关于活体产婴定义产生影响。这也是该段的中心。所以该题选 C.

　　2. [A] 细节与主旨对映题。此类题型给出文中一个细节并提供选项让考生选择，此时考生选择答案必须依照原文的主旨进行把握。我们看这道题，虽然考查的是一句话，但通读全文可以看出，作者的态度上尽管认为该法案尚有不足，但基本上还是持赞同意见的。所以这里选 A.

　　3. [D] 仔细比较原文可以发现，文中作者认为胎儿和婴儿的主要区别在于胎儿不被法律认可为人，而婴儿则可以受到此类保护。

　　4. [B] 细节题。仔细阅读文中最后两段就可发现 partial-birth 指的是一种堕胎方法。

　　5. [B] 推断题。本题需要先排除干扰项 D 项。D 项的表述不是美联社的观点。在文中，作者提到美联社时说他们是错用了词语，把活产婴儿说成是胎儿。注意，这里作者认为是美联社称活产的婴儿为胎儿是用词错误而并没有认为美联社不把产下的活婴儿当作婴儿看。这道题问我们美联社的人怎么看待活产婴儿问题，即使问得很客观，但归根结底这是篇阐述作者个人观点的议论文，只有紧紧抓住作者的观点才能得出正确选项。故该题选 B.

　　Words

　　1. representative 代表;典型的，有代表性的

　　2. codify 编成法典

　　3. Associated press 美联社

　　4. dispatch 急件

　　5. legislation 立法

　　Notes

　　1. At 7：39 p.m. Tuesday， the Associated …full legal protection.“ 本句话难在语序的调整上。只要把语序调整，符合汉语习惯本句话就不难翻译了。本句应译为：周二晚 7：39，美联社驻华盛顿办事处发出了一个急件，开头如下：”国会周二举行投票表决，将完全脱离母体的婴儿定义为活体产婴。这将给予这些胎儿们完全的法律保护。“

　　2. If an infant is born alive …or “premature baby，” not “fetus.” “prematurely”是副词，意思是“未成熟地，太早地，早熟地”。本句应译为：如果一个婴儿早产并存活，那么合适的称呼应该是早产婴或者早产宝宝，而非胎儿。

　　3. But a premature infant is a …he or she reached that state. 这是一个强调句，两次重复提到“premature infant”目的在于强调早产儿应该被看作受法律保护的人。本句应译为：但是一个早产婴儿就是一个早产婴儿，一个受法律保护的人，不管他或她是怎么来到这世上的。that state 在这里指出生。

　　4. The legislation is aimed at an abortion …being destroyed. 这句话成分有些复杂。critics call ‘partial-birth’是修饰 procedure 的，而 in which a fetus is partially delivered before being destroyed.这句话又是用于修饰 partial-birth 的。本句应译为：这项立法目的是针对一种被批评人士称为部分生产的堕胎方法的。部分生产也就是指在破坏这个胎儿之前只把它部分生出来。

　　5. Thirty states and the District of Columbia already have laws against the procedure.

　　这里“against”的意思相当于“forbid”。本句应译为：已经有三十个州和哥伦比亚特区立法禁止这种程序。

　　参考译文

　　活体产婴依然应该算作胎儿么?

　　在周二晚上，美国众议院在一次表决中通过了一项活体产婴保护法案。这份法案很简单，只有三个段落，这将对联邦关于“活体产婴”的定义编入法典。特别是，有了该法案后，一些诸如“人、人类、儿童、个体”的术语不论什么时候出现在联邦法律或规章中时，将被解读为包括了每一个已出生的人类活体胎儿。“活体产婴”这个词条由此被定义为完全从他或她的母体中分离出来，有心跳，有呼吸或者有主动肌群的活动。该条目已经进入了很多州的司法解释。

　　周二晚 7：39，美联社驻华盛顿办事处发出了一个急件，开头如下：“国会周二举行投票表决，将完全脱离母体的婴儿定义为活体产婴。这将给予这些胎儿们完全的法律保护。”“胎儿”这个词条在接下来的报道中被反复不断地提到。很快，我和至少一个读过这篇报道的人指出，美联社的值班编辑仍用“胎儿”一词指代一个已经全部生出来并成活了的人类的婴儿已经不大准确了。如果一个婴儿早产并成活，那么应该称之为“早产婴儿”或“早产宝宝”而不是“胎儿”。

　　有时候，引产被用来作为堕胎的一种办法，但这往往导致产下活体婴儿。这种情况常被称为活体生产堕胎。有时候，其他堕胎方法也会导致产下活婴。但是一个早产婴儿已经是一个早产婴儿，是受法律保护的一个人，而不管他或她是怎么来到世上。

　　遗憾的是，美联社没有改正他们的错误。取而代之的是美联社的编辑们将最初的错误更严重化了。在他们发送的补充报道中，有这样一条陈述：“这项立法目的是针对一种被批评人士称为部分生产的堕胎方法的。部分生产也就是指在破坏这个胎儿之前只把它部分生出来。三十个州和哥伦比亚特区已经立法反对这种堕胎方法。”

　　事实上，活产婴儿保护法案并没有限制部分生产法堕胎。在一次部分生产堕胎中，胎儿或者可以称为婴儿的大部分都被生出来，但是头部依然留在母体子宫内，直到被穿孔。因此命名为部分生产。被部分生产破坏掉的胎儿没有触碰H.R.2175号法案所说的“完全离开他或她的母体”的限制条件，因此不能说是违法。而且，美联社提到的法案限制的是活体生产，而不是限制部分生产法堕胎。据国会司法委员会的说法，H.R.2175将活体产婴编入法典，是符合州立法的目的的。据此，三十个州和哥伦比亚特区将 H.R.中的定义原封不动的搬入到它们自己的法典中。(哥伦比亚特区此前从未有过一项关于部分生产法堕胎的法律。

编辑：张雨