Abortions: Paragraph 219a is deleted, but that is not enough

opinion

Look at the criminal code
Is abortion still a criminal offense? The problem remains with paragraph 218

by Andrea Ritter
11/26/2021, 11:30 a.m.

Finally: Paragraph 219a is no longer applicable. Thanks to the abolition of the “ban on advertising” for abortions, doctors in particular can breathe a sigh of relief. The ardent anti-abortion opponents, who harassed, reported and sued them for years, have been stripped of their legal targets. And because the term is so misleading: In this case, “advertising” never meant posters at the bus stop – such a thing is forbidden for doctors in Germany anyway. “Advertising” according to 219a includes all public information about methods and processes offered in practice. An example: The Berlin doctor Bettina Gaber was convicted in 2019 because she wrote that a “drug-based, anesthetic-free abortion in a protected atmosphere” was one of her services. Seen in this light, the decision of the Ampel coalition may not be breathtakingly progressive – but at least it is contemporary.

What is more interesting is how the new government will deal with Section 218. After all, it has existed since the imperial era, and no matter how much there was quarreling and wrestling in the past: The Federal Republic always stuck to its construct of the “unpunished crime”. In other words, termination of pregnancy is permitted within the first twelve weeks under certain conditions, but is fundamentally illegal. Abortions are only legal if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother or after a criminal offense. The free decision of a woman against unsubscribing, however, is in the penal code. Right next to murder and other homicides.

The law puts abortion in a gray area

According to the motto “Don’t act like that, you are allowed to”, people pretend that this regulation is a petitesse that has no effect on women or doctors. But not true. Legislation anchors abortions in a legal and moral gray area. The consequences are serious: Inadequate training and further education for medical professionals, inadequate offers, especially in rural areas, sometimes patronizing discussions during mandatory counseling, time pressure and delays. As long as the procedure is illegal, how well or badly an unwanted pregnant woman is treated will always depend on many arbitrary factors. She can be lucky. Or bad luck. She can also run into a bungler who causes her lifelong physical or emotional pain – that also still happens.

But now we have a new government that wants to make a lot possible for itself. Legal smoking weed, voting for ages 16 and up, stuff like that. However: The self-proclaimed Freedom and Self-Determination Party FDP cannot imagine a change in Paragraph 218. The compromise was “the result of a long social discussion and, from the perspective of the Free Democrats, should not be touched in its basic structure,” was the party’s statement before the federal election.

Prohibitions do not prevent abortions

It has sounded like this or something similar since 1993, when the Federal Constitutional Court upheld an existing judgment. Since then, all governments have been pretending to be set in stone. Of course, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a highly complex, difficult and almost always painful situation – for the woman concerned. Socially, however, the question is quite simple to answer: unwanted pregnancies have always happened and they will always happen. A country that recognizes women and the reality of their lives does not criminalize their choice.

It has been known for decades that bans do not prevent abortions, on the contrary. If the state wants to protect unborn life, it can only do so with supportive policies for women and families. The Netherlands is a frequently cited example. There, abortions are a punishable offense if they are carried out against the woman’s will. For all other cases, pioneering liberal legislation was introduced early on, with the result that there are fewer abortions than in any other country. Germany has also recognized this and introduced the deadline solution and consultations. So the question is: Why does an allegedly equal society still adhere to Section 218? Why is she so eager to declare the decision against pregnancy to be “illegal” as a matter of principle? Why does it follow a verdict that has been shown not to serve its purpose – protecting unborn life – and has never served it?

We trust artificial intelligence, but not women

The answer is simple: we don’t trust women. We believe in artificial intelligence and flying cars, but that a woman judges her circumstances and makes responsible decisions about what is best for her – we cannot imagine that. Paragraph 218 is the fear of “normalization”: As soon as women are allowed to, they drive away unconscionably and thoughtlessly. Termination as an equivalent to contraception: The myth of the wandering, frivolous woman has nothing to do with reality, but is stubbornly maintained. Section 218 is also about control: if a woman already has sexual intercourse without striving for motherhood, then in the event of fertilization she should also atone for it, as the legislature makes it clear to her: We give you the opportunity to implement your decision. But not the right to do so.

A glance at Canada shows how absurd and misogynistic this picture is. There have been no deadlines or indications there since the late 1980s. If a woman wants to end her pregnancy, she will discuss it with a doctor. Since there are no regulations beyond the decision of the pregnant woman, late abortions would theoretically also be possible. In reality, however, they rarely occur. Overall, the number of abortions has decreased since legalization.

In Germany it should now be a matter of improving the supply situation. But as long as abortions are in the penal code, women and doctors remain vulnerable. It is not criminal to get pregnant unintentionally – to finally acknowledge that is neither a revolution nor the downfall of the West. It’s a fact.