法律教育網

法律英語

2019瑞達法考客觀題學習包

考試內容 報名條件 報名時間 報名方法

成績查詢 考試時間 分 數 線 授予資格

您的位置:法律教育網 > 法律英語 > 經典案例 > 正文

Roe v. Wade - Then and Now

2016-01-28 16:54  來源:   糾錯

By Janet Benshoof

On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court struck down the State of Texas's criminal abortion laws, finding that the right to decide whether to have a child is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The 7-2 decision in Roe v. Wade would have an immediate and profound effect on the lives of American women. Before Roe, it is estimated that “between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegally induced abortions occur[red] annually in the United States.”1 As many as 5,000 to 10,000 women died per year following illegal abortions and many others suffered severe physical and psychological injury.2

To prevent women from dying or injuring themselves from unsafe, illegal or self-induced abortions, women's advocates spearheaded campaigns to reverse century-old criminal abortion laws in the decades preceding Roe. During the 1960s and 1970s, a movement of medical, public health, legal, religious and women's organizations successfully urged one-third of state legislatures to liberalize their abortion statutes.

Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision that recognized that the right to make childbearing choices is central to women's lives and their ability to participate fully and equally in society. Yet, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe was far from radical —— it was the logical extension of High Court decisions on the right to privacy dating back to the turn of the century. The decision is grounded in the same reasoning that guarantees our right to refuse medical treatment and the freedom to resist government search and seizure. In finding that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, the High Court continued a long line of decisions recognizing a right of privacy that protects intimate and personal decisions —— including those affecting child-rearing, marriage, procreation and the use of contraception —— from governmental interference.

The Decision

In its 1973 decision in Roe, the Supreme Court recognized that a woman's right to decide whether to continue her pregnancy was protected under the constitutional provisions of individual autonomy and privacy. For the first time, Roe placed women's reproductive choice alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, by conferring the highest degree of constitutional protection —— “strict scrutiny”—— to choice.

Finding a need to balance a woman's right to privacy with the state's interest in protecting potential life, the Supreme Court established a trimester framework for evaluating restrictions on abortion. The Court required the state to justify any interference with the abortion decision by showing that it had a “compelling interest” in doing so. Restrictions on abortions performed before fetal viability, that is the period before a fetus can live outside a woman's body, were limited to those that narrowly and precisely promoted real maternal health concerns. After the point of viability, the state was free to ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting fetal life. Even after that point, however, the state's interest in the viable fetus must yield to the woman's right to have an abortion to protect her health and life.

Immediately following the Roe decision, those who did not want to see women participate equally in society were galvanized. The far right initiated a political onslaught that has resulted in numerous state and federal abortion restrictions and contributed to a changed Supreme Court, ideologically bent on eviscerating Roe. The right to choose became the target of not only the religious right, but also right-wing politicians and judges who used the Roe decision to attack the “judicial activism” of the Supreme Court and its purported failure to adhere to the text of the Constitution and the “original intent” of its framers. This backlash reached its peak during the three terms of Presidents Reagan and Bush. Beginning in 1983, the U.S. solicitor general routinely urged the Supreme Court, on behalf of the federal government, to overturn Roe. In addition, when appointing Supreme Court justices, Reagan and Bush used opposition to Roe as a litmus test. During this twelve-year period, five justices - O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas - were appointed. Not one of these five, who still constitute a majority on the Court today, supports the “strict scrutiny” standard of review established by Roe.

The Dismantling of Roe

Shortly after the Roe decision, state legislatures began passing laws in hopes of creating exceptions to it or opening up areas of law that Roe did not directly address. No other right has been frontally attacked and so successfully undermined, and all in the course of two decades —— the same two decades that sustained advances in other areas of women's rights, including education and employment.

Teenagers were the first successful target. In 1979 the Court endorsed state laws that required parental consent, as long as they were accompanied by a complicated system whereby minors could assert their privacy rights by requesting a hearing before a state judge on whether they were “mature” or an abortion was in their best interests (Bellotti v. Baird)

The next assault on Roe was directed at low-income women. In 1980 the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited Medicaid from covering most abortions, was upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 margin (Harris v. McRae) The Court abandoned the neutrality required in Roe, finding that, for poor women, government could promote childbearing over abortion, so long as it did so by manipulating women through public funding schemes, not criminal laws.

Dissenting in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983), Justice O'Connor called for a radical erosion of Roe and proposed that a lesser standard of constitutional protection for choice be established, called the “undue burden” standard, in place of the “strict scrutiny” test. By 1989, after the arrival of Justices Kennedy and Scalia and the elevation of William Rehnquist to chief justice, there were no longer five votes to preserve reproductive choice as a fundamental constitutional right. The Court's ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) demonstrated this new reality when five justices expressed hostility toward Roe in differing degrees and essentially called for states to pass legislation banning abortion in order to test the law.

Three years later, in Casey, the strict judicial scrutiny established in Roe was finally abandoned in a plurality opinion of Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. Although the Court said it was not overturning Roe's central premise that abortion is a fundamental right, the Casey decision replaced the original “strict scrutiny” standard governing other fundamental rights for the weak and confusing undue burden standard. This opened the door to a host of state and federal criminal restrictions designed to steer women away from abortion and to promote the rights of the fetus throughout pregnancy. Over 300 criminal abortion restrictions have been enacted by legislatures in the past six years alone, none of which would have been constitutional under the original Roe decision.

The Four Pillars of Roe

The Roe opinion was grounded on four constitutional pillars: (1) the decision to have an abortion was accorded the highest level of constitutional protection like any other fundamental constitutional right; (2) the government had to stay neutral; legislatures could not enact laws that pushed women to make one decision or another; (3) in the period before the fetus is viable, the government may restrict abortion only to protect a woman's health; (4) after viability, the government may prohibit abortion, but laws must make exceptions that permit abortion when necessary to protect a woman's health or life.

Only two of the four Roe pillars remain today as a result of the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. This decision is the culmination of a steady decline in constitutional protection for the right to privacy. A woman's right to choose is still constitutionally protected, however, the “strict scrutiny” standard was jettisoned in favor of a lesser standard of protection for reproductive choice called “undue burden.” Under Casey, state and local laws that favor fetal rights and burden a woman's choice to have abortion are permitted, so long as the burden is not “undue.” No longer does the state have to be neutral in the choice of abortion or childbearing. Now the government is free to pass laws restricting abortion based on “morality,” a code word for religious anti-abortion views. States are now permitted to disfavor abortion and punish women seeking abortions, even those who are young and sick, with harassing laws.

Roe in the 21st Century

In 2000, eight years after the Casey decision, the Court agreed to hear another case that opened up Roe for reexamination. During that period, President Clinton had appointed two justices, Ginsburg and Breyer. The first challenge to Roe in the 21st century came in the form of a Nebraska ban on so-called “partial-birth abortion” brought by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. The language of the Nebraska ban —— and the cookie-cutter versions passed in 30 states —— was sweeping and broad, and could have included virtually all abortion procedures, even those used in the early weeks of pregnancy. Publicly, however, supporters of these bans camouflaged this fact by using a term made up by the National Right-to-Life Committee ——“partial-birth abortion”—— and pretending that the bans were designed to prevent doctors from using one particular procedure.

In a 5-4 vote in the case Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court struck down the ban, finding it an unconstitutional violation of Roe and Casey by failing to include an exception to preserve the health of the woman and by imposing an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose an abortion.

In addition, the Court determined that the effect of the ban went well beyond prohibitions against so-called “late term” abortion, finding the ban to be so broad and vague that constitutionally protected abortion procedures performed before viability could be prohibited. The majority decision was joined by four justices, with four separate dissenting opinions filed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Kennedy previously had supported the right to choose abortion in the Casey decision.

The 5-4 vote in Stenberg is an ominous sign for Roe's future. The Supreme Court is only one vote away from overturning Roe, which would be one of the most radical actions taken in the history of the Court. Without Roe, life for American women would be thrown more than 30 years in reverse, returning them to the days when women could not fully control the number and spacing of their children. Without the ability to make this key decision, women will be denied opportunities to realize their future and take advantage of educational and career opportunities.

The world is looking to the U.S. to establish a vision of justice for the 21st century. It is not a time for our political leaders to divide this nation by turning the clock back on women's human rights.

1 Willard Cates, Jr., and Robert W. Rochat, Illegal Abortions in the United States: 1972-74, 8 Fam. Plan. Persp. 86, 92 (1976) (footnote omitted)

2 See Lawrence Lader, Abortion 3 (1966); Cates & Rochat, supra, at 86-92; see also Nancy Binkin, Julian Gold and Willard Cates, Jr., Illegal Abortion Deaths in the United States: Why Are They Still Occuring? 14 Fam. Plan. Persp. 163, 166 (1982) (Roe resulted in a dramatic decline in deaths due to illegal abortion)

Janet Benshoof is one of the nation's foremost experts on reproductive rights and privacy law, and has been advocating for women's health and equality for over twenty years. Benshoof is the founder and president of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, a legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing and protecting women's reproductive rights worldwide.

In 2000, The National Law Journal listed Benshoof as one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America”, an honor she has received several times. In 1998, that same publication recognized Benshoof as one of the “50 Most Influential Women Lawyers” in the United States. In 1992, Benshoof received the prestigious MacArthur Foundation fellowship in recognition of her contribution to women's reproductive freedom. Benshoof received her juris doctor from Harvard Law School in 1972.

Roe v. Wade案的過去和現在

憑風譯

1973年1月22日美國最高法院否決了德克薩斯州刑事墮胎法,判定決定是否生育的權利是一項由美國憲法保證的基本權利。Roe v. Wade案件7:2的判決對美國婦女的生活產生了直接和深遠的影響。

在Roe案件以前,據估計“在美國每年會發生200,000到1200,000次非法墮胎”。每年大約有5,000到10,000個婦女死于非法墮胎,其他許多婦女遭受身體上和心理上的傷害。

為防止婦女因不安全的、非法的或者自感墮胎而死亡或受到傷害,婦女運動的提倡者開始發動運動以推翻Roe案件以前的幾十年中存在的過時的刑事墮胎法。二十世紀六、七十年代,一場有關于醫療的、公共健康的、合法的、宗教的婦女機構運動成功地促使美國1/3的州立法機關使墮胎法令自由化。

Roe v. Wade案件的判決具有里程碑的意義,它確認了婦女選擇生育的權利對婦女生活的重要意義以及婦女在社會中完全平等的參與能力。然而,最高法院對Roe案件的判決遠非根本性的,-它是對19世紀末20世紀初高級法院隱私權判例的合理延伸。這項判決與保證人們謝絕醫療的權利和抵制政府調查和扣押的自由具有同樣的推理基礎。為了判定憲法上的隱私權包括婦女選擇是否繼續懷孕的權利,高級法院延續了一系列判決確定保護私人隱私權免于政府的干擾,包括那些影響兒童撫養、婚姻、生殖和避孕品的使用的判決。

Roe案件的判決

在1973年Roe案件的判決中,最高法院確認婦女決定是否繼續懷孕的權利受到憲法上個人自主權和隱私權規定的保護。通過將憲法上的最高級別的保護-“嚴格審查”-賦予選擇權,Roe案件的判決第一次將婦女的生育權與其他基本權利并列,如言論自由和宗教自由。

最高法院發現平衡婦女隱私權和州保護潛在生命的利益是必要的,并因此建立了一個三個月的期間以評估對墮胎的限制性規定。法院要求各州提供證據表明其有非常有說服力的理由干涉婦女墮胎以證明其干預墮胎的決定是正當的。對在胎兒存活期之前進行墮胎的限制被限定在那些嚴格促進真正的母體健康的考慮,胎兒存活期之前是指胎兒能在母體外生存之前的時期。過了胎兒存活點,各州可以自由的禁止墮胎或者采取其他步驟促進其保護胎兒生命的利益。然而,甚至過了那一點,州有關于保護存活胎兒的利益也必須要服從于婦女進行墮胎以保護其健康和生命的權利。

Roe案件的判決剛剛作出之后,那些不想看到婦女平等地參與社會生活的人受到了很大的刺激。極右派分子發動了一場政治上的沖擊運動,結果是許多州和聯邦立法機關開始對墮胎進行限制,以及促成了最高法院的變動,這在意識形態上扭曲了Roe案件的精辟判決。選擇墮胎的權利不僅成為宗教權批判的目標,而且成為右翼政治家和法官攻擊的對象,他們利用Roe案件的判決來攻擊最高法院“司法激進主義”,聲稱最高法院未能遵循憲法的基本內容、扭曲了立法者本來的意圖。這種對抗式反應在里根和布什總統任職期間達到了頂峰。1983年初,美國司法部長代表美國聯邦政府例行公事的敦促最高法院推翻Roe案件的判決。除此之外,在任命最高法院法官時,里根和布什總統都以反對Roe案件的判決作為最后的檢驗標準。在這12年間,有五位法官被任命,他們是O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, 和Thomas.這些法官直到今天還構成最高法院的多數派,但是他們并不支持由Roe案件所建立的“嚴格審查”標準。

Roe案件判決的瓦解

在Roe 案件判決作出不久,州立法機關開始頒布新的法律以期望創建Roe案件判決的例外情況,或者開辟Roe案件未直接管轄的新的法律領域。在整整20年的時間里,沒有一種其他的權利被如此正面攻擊過,并如此成功的被破壞掉。恰恰在這20年間,婦女權利的其他領域保持蓬勃的發展,包括教育權和工作權。

未成年人成為最初成功被破壞的目標。1979年最高法院批準了州有關于未成年人墮胎需要征求父母同意的法律,只要這種法律規定了一個比較復雜的制度,未成年人可以借此主張自己的隱私權,他們可以要求法院召開聽證會以討論他們是否是足夠“成熟的”或者墮胎符合他們的最大利益。(Bellotti v. Baird)

對Roe案件判決的第二個攻擊目標是低收入婦女。1980年最高法院在Harris v. McRae案中以5:4的比例支持了海德修正案關于禁止醫療補助覆蓋大多數墮胎的規定。最高法院放棄了Roe案件所必需的中立性,判決到,對貧窮的婦女來講,只要政府通過公共財政計劃而不是刑法來幫助婦女,政府就能夠促進婦女分娩而非墮胎。

因在1983年的City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health案中持不同意見,法官O'Connor號召了一次對Roe案件判決的根本性的沖擊,并提議建立一個對憲法保護的選擇權的次級標準,即“不適當的負擔”標準,以代替“嚴格審查”標準。到1989年,隨著法官Kennedy和Scalia的到來以及法官Rehnquist被提升為首席法官,最高法院不再有五名法官認為生育權是一種基本的憲法權利。最高法院在1989年Webster v. Reproductive Health Services案件中的裁決證明了這個新的事實,當時有五名法官不同程度的表達了對Roe案件判決的否定,在實質上要求各州通過立法形式禁止墮胎以執行法律。

三年后,在Casey案中,根據法官O'Connor, Kennedy和Souter的多數意見,Roe案件判決所建立起來的嚴格司法審查標準被完全拋棄。雖然法院聲稱它并未推翻Roe案件判決的中心前提即墮胎是一項基本權利,但是Casey案的判決仍然用弱的、易混淆的不適當負擔標準取代了調節其他基本權利的最初的“嚴格審查”標準。這為各州和聯邦制定的旨在引導婦女遠離墮胎以及促進整個懷孕期間胎兒的權利的刑事限制性規定打開了方便之門。在過去的六年中,立法機關頒布了300多個刑事墮胎限制性規定,根據最初的Roe案件的判決,這些規定都是不合乎憲法的。

Roe案件判決的四個支柱

Roe案件判決有四個憲法性的支柱:(1)決定是否墮胎的權利應該與其他任何基本的憲法權利一樣被給予最高水平的憲法保護;(2)政府應當保持中立,立法機關不能頒布推動婦女作出決定的法律;(3)在胎兒存活之前的時期,政府僅可出于保護婦女健康的考慮限制墮胎;(4)在胎兒存活之后的時期,政府可以禁止墮胎,但是法律必須規定例外情況,出于保護婦女健康或生命的需要應該允許墮胎。

根據1992年最高法院在Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey案件中的判決,上述支柱中僅有兩個被保留到了今天。這個判決可以作為隱私權的憲法保護持續削弱的頂點。婦女選擇墮胎的權利仍然可以根據憲法受到保護,但是“嚴格審查”標準被廢棄,取而代之的是一個對生育權保護的次級標準,即“不適當負擔”標準。根據Casey案的判決,州和地方制定有關于保護胎兒權利、為婦女選擇墮胎的權利施加負擔的法律是被允許的,只要這種負擔不是“不適當的”。州在婦女選擇墮胎還是分娩上的態度不再是中立的,F在政府可以根據“道德”標準自由地頒布法律限制墮胎,“道德”一詞是宗教領域的反墮胎詞匯,F在各州被允許限制墮胎,并根據法律懲罰進行墮胎的婦女,甚至于那些年輕的、患病的婦女。

21世紀Roe案件的判決

在2000年,Casey案件判決的8年之后,最高法院同意審理另外一個案件,通過這個案件最高法院對Roe案件判決進行了重新審查。在那個時期,總統克林頓任命了兩個法官:Ginsburg和Breyer.21世紀對Roe案件判決進行的第一個挑戰是以生育法律政策中心對內布拉斯加州提起的所謂的“部分生育墮胎”的禁令的形式出現的。內布拉斯加州禁令的語言極其廣泛,在本質上包含了所有的墮胎手術,甚至于那些在懷孕初期進行的手術。類似版本的禁令在其他30個州出現。然而,這些禁令的支持者通過使用一個由國家生命權委員會創造的詞匯 “部分生育墮胎”公然掩蓋這樣的事實,并偽稱這些禁令只是為禁止醫生使用一種特殊的手術。

在2000年的Stenberg v. Carhart案中,最高法院以5:4的比例否決了內布拉斯加州的這個禁令,法院判決道,這個禁令是違反憲法的,也是對Roe和Casey案件判決的違背,因為禁令沒有規定保護婦女健康的例外情況,并對婦女選擇墮胎的權利施加了不適當的負擔。

除此之外,法院判定這個禁令的影響要超出對所謂 “晚期”墮胎的禁止,法院同時裁決道,這項禁令的語言如此廣泛和模糊以至于在胎兒存活期之前進行憲法保護的墮胎手術都被禁止了。判決中的多數意見由五名法官作出,其他四名法官發表獨立的反對意見,他們是首席法官Rehnquist、法官Scalia、法官Thomas和法官Kennedy.先前法官 Kennedy曾在Casey案件的判決中支持婦女選擇墮胎的權利。

Stenberg案中法官們5:4比例的表決是對Roe案件判決的不祥的預兆。最高法院僅一票之差就要推翻Roe案件的判決,這可能是最高法院歷史上所采取的最激進的運動之一。沒有Roe案件,美國婦女的生活將會倒退30多年,倒退到婦女不能完全控制其所生孩子的數量以及時間間隔的年代。如果沒有作出這種關鍵問題的決定的權利,美國婦女將會失去認識自己將來的機會,將會不能實現她們的教育和工作機會。

世界正在關注美國在21世紀建立一個正義的秩序,F在還不是我們的政治領導者通過否定婦女人權分化這個國家的時候。

責任編輯:儀

特別推薦

地圖
法律教育網官方微信

法律教育網微信公眾號向您推薦考試資訊、輔導資料、考試教材、歷年真題、法律常識、法律法規等資訊,只有你想不到,沒有我們做不到!詳情>>

1、凡本網注明“來源:法律教育網”的所有作品,版權均屬法律教育網所有,未經本網授權不得轉載、鏈接、轉貼或以其他方式使用;已經本網授權的,應在授權范圍內使用,且必須注明“來源:法律教育網”。違反上述聲明者,本網將追究其法律責任。

2、本網部分資料為網上搜集轉載,均盡力標明作者和出處。對于本網刊載作品涉及版權等問題的,請作者與本網站聯系,本網站核實確認后會盡快予以處理。

本網轉載之作品,并不意味著認同該作品的觀點或真實性。如其他媒體、網站或個人轉載使用,請與著作權人聯系,并自負法律責任。

3、本網站歡迎積極投稿

海西| 海门| 青海西宁| 迪庆| 泉州| 昭通| 荣成| 许昌| 定西| 琼海| 肇庆| 菏泽| 宁德| 乐清| 石狮| 孝感| 神农架| 达州| 宿州| 石河子| 顺德| 新余| 营口| 黄冈| 如皋| 咸宁| 溧阳| 乐山| 信阳| 江西南昌| 霍邱| 嘉峪关| 临猗| 秦皇岛| 十堰| 红河| 吐鲁番| 六安| 建湖| 霍邱| 果洛| 海南| 阳江| 大理| 博尔塔拉| 单县| 遵义| 章丘| 神农架| 巴音郭楞| 喀什| 四平| 和田| 聊城| 内蒙古呼和浩特| 宿迁| 吐鲁番| 蚌埠| 安庆| 海北| 喀什| 大同| 简阳| 燕郊| 盘锦| 朝阳| 贵港| 池州| 晋城| 临沂| 西藏拉萨| 开封| 茂名| 海南海口| 建湖| 铜陵| 临汾| 金华| 阿拉尔| 昌吉| 泰安| 安顺| 晋江| 赤峰| 黄冈| 溧阳| 大丰| 黔南| 佛山| 邹城| 建湖| 遵义| 四川成都| 湖南长沙| 铜陵| 孝感| 株洲| 莱州| 那曲| 宝应县| 白沙| 德阳| 诸城| 山西太原| 广安| 鄂尔多斯| 枣阳| 通辽| 葫芦岛| 张家界| 宁德| 遂宁| 宁波| 铜陵| 常德| 蓬莱| 苍南| 迁安市| 镇江| 中卫| 大庆| 松原| 新余| 吉林长春| 基隆| 南平| 莱芜| 临海| 赵县| 大连| 博尔塔拉| 抚州| 琼中| 珠海| 简阳| 天水| 三沙| 酒泉| 伊春| 六安| 长兴| 桂林| 白沙| 宁夏银川| 高雄| 新余| 漯河| 广元| 迪庆| 怒江| 改则| 娄底| 大庆| 平顶山| 黔南| 海东| 东方| 阿拉善盟| 宁国| 来宾| 清远| 项城| 平潭| 潜江| 定安| 五家渠| 威海| 永康| 朝阳| 莱芜| 陕西西安| 巴中| 平凉| 张家口| 锦州| 阿拉善盟| 四川成都| 安顺| 泗阳| 凉山| 西双版纳| 邯郸| 新余| 垦利| 龙岩| 广安| 汕头| 神木| 镇江| 广饶| 滕州| 遵义| 东台| 桐乡| 绥化| 鹤壁| 呼伦贝尔| 新余| 玉树| 文昌| 滁州| 白城| 巴中| 章丘| 蚌埠| 崇左| 宝鸡| 石河子| 包头| 东阳| 琼海| 伊犁| 通辽| 东台| 临猗| 汕尾| 咸阳| 醴陵| 昭通| 霍邱| 阜新| 明港| 泰州| 济南| 衢州| 神农架| 通化| 锡林郭勒| 云南昆明| 郴州| 崇左| 崇左| 瓦房店| 定安| 怀化| 阿克苏| 广西南宁| 黔东南| 明港| 阿克苏| 泰兴| 伊犁| 迪庆| 葫芦岛| 林芝| 余姚| 台中| 启东| 天水| 吉林| 吉林长春| 南阳| 徐州| 襄阳| 德清| 临夏| 那曲| 昌吉| 盘锦| 鄂州| 赵县| 承德| 澳门澳门| 泗洪| 林芝| 乳山| 德州| 萍乡| 大庆| 昌吉| 台北| 澳门澳门| 公主岭| 平潭| 天长| 涿州| 兴化| 博尔塔拉| 伊犁| 仙桃| 岳阳| 德清| 万宁| 大同| 济宁| 盐城| 宜春| 聊城| 吉林长春| 黔西南| 温州| 湛江| 芜湖| 黄冈| 台州| 燕郊| 黔西南| 商洛| 黑河| 金昌|