The District Court of Giessen has sentenced doctor Kristina Hänel to a fine due to illicit advertising of abortions. The court imposed a penalty of 40 daily rates to 150 euros (total 6,000 euros), thus meeting demands of Public Prosecutor’s office. “The legislator does not want public to discuss abortion as if it were a normal thing”, presiding judge justified verdict.
if ( typeof AdController !== ‘undefined’ !window.Zeit.isMobileView()) { if ( !document.getElementById( ‘iqadtile8’ ) ) { var elem = document.createElement( ‘div’ ); elem.id = ‘iqadtile8’; elem.className = “ad ad-desktop ad-desktop–8 ad-desktop–8-on-article”; elem.setAttribute(‘data-banner-type’, ‘desktop’); elem.setAttribute(‘data-banner-label’, ‘Anzeige’); document.getElementById(‘ad-desktop-8’).parentNode.appendChild(elem); AdController.render(‘iqadtile8’); if ( window.console typeof window.console.info === ‘function’ ) { window.console.info(‘AdController ‘ AdController.VERSION ‘ tile 8 desktop’) } } } if ( typeof AdController !== ‘undefined’ window.Zeit.isMobileView()) { if ( !document.getElementById( ‘iqadtile3’ ) ) { var elem = document.createElement( ‘div’ ); elem.id = ‘iqadtile3’; elem.className = “ad ad-mobile ad-mobile–3 ad-mobile–3-on-article”; elem.setAttribute(‘data-banner-type’, ‘mobile’); document.getElementById(‘ad-mobile-3’).parentNode.appendChild(elem); AdController.render(‘iqadtile3’); if ( window.console typeof window.console.info === ‘function’ ) { window.console.info(‘AdController ‘ AdController.VERSION ‘ tile 3 mobile’) } } }
The Defender of doctor had said to court that her client had only informed, but had not operated “appellative advertising” on her internet site. The lawyer announced that he would like to challenge verdict with a revision: “I could not imagine that a judge does not know difference between information and advertising,” defender said after verdict. Hänel had already announced before verdict, if necessary to sue before Constitutional Court.
The indictment was based on paragraph 219a of Penal Code. It prohibits offering, announcing or awarding of abortions from a financial advantage, or if this is done in a “grossly offensive manner”. “This case puts judges in a really stupid situation! According to prevailing legal opinion, what Mrs Hänel has done is probably already offence, “said law professor Ulrike Lembke online. She added, however, “I believe that abolition of paragraph (219a) is overdue. The law contradicts our present conception of free doctor, self-determination and equality. “
Abortion legal situation in Germany
Until end of twelfth week of pregnancy, women in Germany remain free of charge under clause 218 of German criminal investigation if y have a abort ion carried out under certain conditions.
A consultation before is obligatory. After end of twelfth week re must be specific reasons for demolition: for example, a foreseeable unreasonable burden on expectant mor by, for instance, a disability of unborn, danger of life for pregnant woman or a pregnancy after a Sex crimes.
An overview of advisory services: Pro Familia, Diakonisches work, German Red Cross. Some of m are church-shaped. Women’s doctors also offer compulsory counseling. The Doctor who performs procedure must not have performed consultation before. There must be three days of reflection between call and procedure.
The Public Prosecutor’s office in Gießen criticized Internet presence of now condemned gynecologist Hänel from year 2015. In this, she informed, among or things, that she also carries out abortions in her practice. She had a link on her website to give women information about abortion. In a PDF file, interested parties were mainly given legal and medical information. Meanwhile, doctor only offers that furr information on subject of abortion is sent by e-mail.
if ( typeof AdController !== ‘undefined’ !window.Zeit.isMobileView()) { if ( !document.getElementById( ‘iqadtile4’ ) ) { var elem = document.createElement( ‘div’ ); elem.id = ‘iqadtile4’; elem.className = “ad ad-desktop ad-desktop–4 ad-desktop–4-on-article”; elem.setAttribute(‘data-banner-type’, ‘desktop’); elem.setAttribute(‘data-banner-label’, ‘Anzeige’); document.getElementById(‘ad-desktop-4’).parentNode.appendChild(elem); AdController.render(‘iqadtile4’); if ( window.console typeof window.console.info === ‘function’ ) { window.console.info(‘AdController ‘ AdController.VERSION ‘ tile 4 desktop’) } } } if ( typeof AdController !== ‘undefined’ window.Zeit.isMobileView()) { if ( !document.getElementById( ‘iqadtile4’ ) ) { var elem = document.createElement( ‘div’ ); elem.id = ‘iqadtile4’; elem.className = “ad ad-mobile ad-mobile–4 ad-mobile–4-on-article”; elem.setAttribute(‘data-banner-type’, ‘mobile’); document.getElementById(‘ad-mobile-4’).parentNode.appendChild(elem); AdController.render(‘iqadtile4’); if ( window.console typeof window.console.info === ‘function’ ) { window.console.info(‘AdController ‘ AdController.VERSION ‘ tile 4 mobile’) } } } SPD wants to initiate legislative change
Over past few years, Hänel has never been back twice by organization’s abortion opponents! been displayed. In both cases, procedures were discontinued. Hänel has also launched an online petition to German Bundestag. It calls for a ‘ right of information for women to abort pregnancy ‘. The petition now has more than 115,000 signatures.
In recent weeks, case had triggered a debate on right of abortion and, in particular, 219a clauses. Opponents of paragraph argue that it hinders right of women to inform mselves objectively about possibilities of abortion.
The SPD demanded that para-219a be completely deleted. The deputy Group chairman Eva HÖGL announced a corresponding initiative. Politicians from Greens and left also raised corresponding demands in advance.
CDU politicians, however, declared that ban on advertising should prevent business models with abortions. The health policy spokeswoman Elisabeth Winkel Meier-Becker (CDU) fears that abortions will be downplayed when ban on advertising is abolished. At same time she said: “One can certainly argue about wher factual information on homepage of a doctor fulfils offence.”
