- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Most cases of abortion are illegal in Germany, which report says is not compatible with international standards
Abortions in Germany should be legalised within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a government-appointed commission has recommended.
While abortion is rarely punished, it remains illegal in Germany, except for specific circumstances including when a woman’s life is in danger, or she is a victim of rape, while the prerequisite for any termination is a consultation with a state-recognised body.
Advocates of a law change have welcomed the investigation into the country’s legal framework, calling the law outdated and detrimental to women. Even in the cases not considered illegal, the procedure must take place within the first three months, except when there is a compelling reason to carry it out later.
The all-female expert commission on reproductive self-determination and reproductive medicine was set up by Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party government after the desire to change the 153-year-old law was anchored in its coalition agreement.
As an American I’m shocked how many European countries have stronger restrictions than the United states.
What sets the US apart is how wildly the laws vary by state, with 10 states currently allowing no exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother, i.e total, or near-total, bans.
In contrast, while many countries in Europe limit abortions to a point between 12 and 20 weeks, there are almost always exceptions and circumstances where an abortion can be granted medical approval.
I’m not against stays putting restrictions on abortion but I think several states have effectively banned it which I’m not ok with. Personally i think it’s an overly religious argument in America rather than a logical one.
In that case, you are well within the majority of Americans. What’s odd is why Republicans appear hellbent on pushing extreme religious views into law when much of the country is against it.
Their platform is pro-life. They need to catchup to the times that most Americans while they claim publicly they are pro-life are really pro-choice. Also you have to think at a state level. That’s where most the action is coming from. Several red states pushed for abortion bans in the state constitution and were shot down with means even the republicans voted against it.
I feel this party is drifting out of alignment with their constituents.
Which 10 states would those be? I don’t know of any state that prohibits an abortion when the life of the mother is at risk.
https://abc7ny.com/amp/abortion-ban-map-where-banned-restricted-protected/13299140/
Here’s a more recent breakdown.
https://www.cnn.com/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us-dg/index.html
You’re right in that many of the states where abortion is banned supposedly allow exceptions when the life of the mother is at risk, but in real terms that often translates to healthcare providers being too scared to carry out the procedure, or leaving it too late, for fear of legal repercussions.
The headline really is misleading. Abortion is allowed and performed regularly before 12 weeks pc/14 weeks pm. It is more of a formal change because an outdated paragraph makes it a crime, yet it is decriminalized and not prosecuted.
The more problematic part of that paragraph was that “advertising abortion” is illegal, i.e. mentioning that you perform abortions in your office on a website etc was illegal and could still be criminalized. That put people in a position when they had to call office after office to ask whether they perform abortions instead of just googling it. That was a hassle and impractical and punishing women when they are in a vulnerable place to begin with. (Hell I can’t even make a phone call to make a regular doctor’s appointment.)
But the first part is mostly about language. Abortion being a crime that is not punished implies that women, despite having legal access to abortion, still do something wrong (and de facto illegal) in the eyes of the state and the law.
Noone cared about doctors having a quick paragraph about in on their webpage before an US evangelical went to court over it and courts found no way to interpret the language but to consider it advertisement, so they changed the law. AFAIU it was always intended to mean “don’t have billboards” but apparently the courts disagreed. IIRC they also added a register thing so that places offering counselling can give women a list of providers near them.
It’s really just social safety nets that Europe is more liberal about. Many things are fairly conservative. The protected designation of origin laws are a pretty good example.
I’ve never thought much about the origination laws. Why do you consider them conservative? Seems more about keeping labeling honest. I only know a few instance such as parm cheese and champagne
There’s nothing special about the champagne region that makes it better for sparkling wine than some other region. Similar for parmesan or kobe beef. It’s absolutely a conservative view to say only things from the original area can use the name.
And you’re free to make your region famous for its sparkling wine, out-shining the Champagne.
DOP products always have a very long cultural history, and also cannot be properly replicated outside of the region – you can make good products that might even be similar, but you can’t make the thing because the product depends on the local microclimate or whatnot.
There’s another label for things that can be reproduced outside of the region. Say, Kabanosy staropolskie: You can make Kabanosi all you want with any recipe, if you want to make “Old Polish Kabanosi” you have to use the actual original time-honoured recipe. If you don’t want to then don’t call it that.
All this stuff is essentially trademarks that are given to regions, or even recipes, instead of individual producers.
I have never seen it better, but the name defines the location.
Yeah, but it’s a brand. There’s nothing special about the Coca-Cola company that makes it impossible for other soda manufacturers to make brown sweet drinks either, but they have exclusive rights to the name.
Why would you even want to name your sparkling wine after the Champagne region unless you’re making it there? It’s because the name has a value, and the origin laws are there to protect that value.
Yeah at least in theory lol, some of those countries aren’t even very religious, would expect looser rules on this
Germany is quite big on not having too easy answers to ethical questions. Roe vs. Wade pretty much said “fetuses aren’t even people who cares”, while the German position is “fetuses develop as, not to, humans”, thus there’s a rights conflict which has to be addressed in some way or the other.
I don’t think anything much will change in practice, this will end with some definition changes (decriminalised vs. legal) and some reforms around pregnancy counselling as well as making sure that counselling and abortion are actually properly available (looking at you, Bavaria), maybe reforms around costs for abortions (at-will are not considered medically necessary thus health insurance doesn’t cover it, but if you’re poor the state will cover it, aftercare in any case is medically necessary thus paid by insurance). The overall tenor will still be “the state has a duty to minimise the number of abortions, primarily by social and welfare means”, the constitutional court would void any law that implies otherwise very quickly.
On the flip-side a total ban would be completely unthinkable: Abortions for medical or criminological reasons count as self-defence, no questions asked, no arguments to be had. Evaluation in either case is up to the medical profession, no need for a guilty verdict or any such stuff.
I’m pro-choice. I just always assumed much of Europe was pro-choice as that’s what I had been told. Just interesting when it pops up in the news that’s it’s not.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Here in Germany, while abortions are illegal (since fetuses are considered humans by law), it is decriminalized. It’s more about technicalities. You do have the choice though. It’s not as easy as going to an abortion clinic and half an hour later you’re done but if you got pregnant on accident (or by force) or have a medical need for abortion, there’s always a way. If it was just an accident, however, you do have to pay for the abortion yourself, unless you can’t afford it. Also, there is a mandatory counseling session.
Ah. So there is an option to just pay for it? So the title is a little misleading since it’s not illegal in the sense it’s criminal.
Nono it’s illegal it’s just that, quoth:
TBH I don’t think anyone really understands the legal-philosophical meaning of it. The constitutional court said something along the lines of “you can’t just call it legal” and then someone came up with this. I guess you could call it a legal fiction, comparable to this gem:
That last one is a brain twister. I get it. Just is an odd way to phrase it.