Judge Johannes Nink is not pleased with the verdict that he announces. He leaves little doubt about that. And yet the 3rd Small Criminal Division at the court Giessen, dressed with professional judge Nink and two female judges, is not able to make another decision. "You have to carry the verdict as an honorary title in the fight for a better law," Judge Nink advises the doctor Kristina Hänel. The 62-year-old carries the verdict in any case with version. She had expected it.
The casting of the district court confirms the first-instance judgment of the court against Hänel. According to the Gießener, GP violated § 219a of the Criminal Code. On her website she gave information about the possibilities and conditions of a termination of pregnancy and at the same time she made it clear that she is carrying out such an intervention in her practice. This is prohibited advertising based on Article 219a.
There are no differences between those involved in the proceedings in room 207. Hänel's defender Karlheinz Merkel sees it that way, the prosecutor too, the room too. The court also confirmed the fine of the lower court against Hänel for an amount of 40 daily rates of 150 euros. An abortion opponent – a student from Kleve – had indicated Hänel.
It is still on their website to read that she is performing abortions. Because the point at which it is the doctor and her defender is fundamental. According to her, paragraph 219a is unconstitutional. He clashed with Article 5 and Article 12 of the Constitution, that is to say with the freedom of information and expression and the freedom of occupation.
"It is only forbidden to advertise"
Prosecutor Christian Bause also says that the paragraph intervenes in the "professional freedom of all doctors" to inform about their performance. It was also an "interference in the freedom of information of all pregnant women". Because he also knows the reality: "If you search for an abortion on the internet, you get to & # 39; babycaust.de & # 39; and other ugly sites." The page mentioned here comes from a radical abortion who brings doctors in pilot who commit abortions.
However, the public prosecutor went further, the question was whether the interference in professional freedom was proportional. In his opinion it is so. "Mrs. Hänel is not forbidden to perform an abortion, it is only forbidden to advertise, because the legislator says very clearly: we do not want publicity for abortions advertised."
Kristina Hänel says it is her job to educate and inform patients. She also does this on her website, "because it is important to me that women can inform themselves in advance about medical methods, risks & complications".
Hänel contradicts the presentation that every woman in compulsory counseling receives addresses from doctors who perform a demolition. She talks about a woman who had driven 140 kilometers the day before to get into her practice – because the women in different hospitals and also in an advisory center did not receive addresses from doctors. "That is the reality we face every day," says Hänel.
"Nobody wants a break"
She wants her patients to know who they are dealing with. "People who do not share my attitude should have the opportunity to stay away from my practice, I would lie to them and abuse their trust if I did not reveal my position and still shut it down."
"Nobody wants a demolition, because that is always an emergency solution and did not want anything in the first place," says Hänel. "To imply that I would promote a demolition is a serious reproach to me, because I send away every woman who is ambivalent for the first time." The assumption that a woman can decide to have a pregnancy due to advertising ignores the situation of unintentionally pregnant women and denies their ability to think independently.
Such insinuations affect the dignity of women, says Hänel. It is absurd to think that women are unacceptable for information from doctors, because they are tempted to do so. "Then I want to make the women illiterate again, so they can not read the information." The audience in the hall cheers. Judge Nink does not stop it.
Many supporters came to Gießen that day. On banners they demand the abolition of paragraph 219a. While in the hall about his unconstitutionality is spoken, it is loud at the door. Two Femen activists storm into the stairwell, expose their breasts and demand an acquittal for Hänel. On the upper body of a woman says: "My stomach is mine." This is reported by a bailiff who helped to remove the women from the building.
Defender Merkel does not want an acquittal for his client. He wants the court to regard the paragraph as unconstitutional, suspend the procedure and demand a ruling from the Federal Constitutional Court. Because an acquittal & # 39; the crucial problem & # 39; would not solve, according to Merkel.
However, the court decides not to submit the case to the judges in Karlsruhe. "The court also has doubts about constitutionality," Judge Nink says in the verdict. But he sees no justice, but politically in duty. Nink appeals to legislators to "finally change the law". He does not say that as a judge, but as a citizen. It is & # 39; wishful thinking & # 39 ;, he says, that women would be persuaded by not containing the information to stop. & # 39;
Kristina Hänel and her defender have already announced that they are appealing against the decision. Then, as the next case, the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt has to deal with the case. The judgment is therefore not final. And the struggle of Kristina Hänel against paragraph 219a continues.