>The German government is looking to stop protesters blocking access to abortion facilities and counseling centers. It comes amid efforts to decriminalize abortion in Germany.
It is incredible that they are just now (trying) addressing this… But later better than never.
1.) Isn’t blocking access to any place already illegal? I am pretty sure keeping a person from going into a doctor’s office already falls under Nötigung. That being said, if they want to write a minimum distance or something into the law, it’s not going to hurt.
2.) Why are they referring to the 12 week rule as a loophole? §218 is not a loophole, it’s a clearly and consciously defined exception. I am not against decriminalizing abortions, but I do not like publicly funded news stations framing things in very questionable ways. They make it sound like abortions are only possible due to sheer luck (within the constraints they are possible in).
3.) To add to that point, they link to another article of theirs (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-moves-to-reform-abortion-law/a-62014740), where they make sure to point out that §219a is a law that “has its origins in Nazi-era social policy”. The law was passed in early 1933, it’s origins are quite a bit older, and I have yet to see DW point out the “Nazi era origins” or the animal protection act (passed November 1933).
3 comments
>The German government is looking to stop protesters blocking access to abortion facilities and counseling centers. It comes amid efforts to decriminalize abortion in Germany.
It is incredible that they are just now (trying) addressing this… But later better than never.
1.) Isn’t blocking access to any place already illegal? I am pretty sure keeping a person from going into a doctor’s office already falls under Nötigung. That being said, if they want to write a minimum distance or something into the law, it’s not going to hurt.
2.) Why are they referring to the 12 week rule as a loophole? §218 is not a loophole, it’s a clearly and consciously defined exception. I am not against decriminalizing abortions, but I do not like publicly funded news stations framing things in very questionable ways. They make it sound like abortions are only possible due to sheer luck (within the constraints they are possible in).
3.) To add to that point, they link to another article of theirs (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-moves-to-reform-abortion-law/a-62014740), where they make sure to point out that §219a is a law that “has its origins in Nazi-era social policy”. The law was passed in early 1933, it’s origins are quite a bit older, and I have yet to see DW point out the “Nazi era origins” or the animal protection act (passed November 1933).