On Wednesday the Bundestag will debate so-called sidewalk harassment. It is ultimately a commitment to protect pregnant women, says Céline Feldmann.

Women must be protected from harassment by abortion opponents Photo: Sachelle Babbar/imago

Ms. Feldmann, the federal government wants to better protect pregnant women from those who oppose abortion. What exactly is the problem?

Celine Feldmann: Unfortunately, it often happens that self-proclaimed pro-life activists appear at counseling centers for unwanted pregnancies or gynecological clinics and distribute photographs of, for example, dismembered fetuses. They loudly occupy space with signs and chants and make access to practices considerably difficult. This often worries pregnant women and makes the work of clinic staff difficult.

Can't anything be done about it yet?

At least there is no regulation at the national level. Law enforcement and jurisprudence authorities approach these situations very differently. This means that these so-called sidewalk nuisances rarely stop and generally create enormous legal uncertainty. Pregnant people, counseling staff and medical staff are exposed to great stress.

What is the objective of the bill that the Bundestag will debate next Wednesday?

First of all, about prevention, also about repression, that is, about the law on administrative offenses. As a preventive measure, it provides for protection zones, which means that certain actions are prohibited within 100 meters of the consultation and advice centers. These can be sanctioned as administrative infractions. Those affected can call the police if they want the harassment described to stop.

How do you find that?

To us, as the German Association of Women Lawyers, it seems fundamentally positive that this law is finally here. It's great that the federal government is committed to wanting to protect pregnant people. It is also very good that the law makes it clear that the federal states have the task of guaranteeing pregnant people unrestricted, that is to say very practical, access to counseling and care services. And finally, it is important to expand statistical coverage.

What does that mean?

So far there is a lack of data, that is, a record of the practices and clinics that perform abortions. This should no longer only happen at the level of the federal states, but also at the level of regions and districts. This is important because in Bavaria, for example, the supply situation is usually not good. But there are big differences, for example between the metropolitan area of ​​Munich and Upper Franconia. In Upper Franconia you have to drive very far if you need an abortion. Therefore, more detailed information is needed.

Isn't such a ban a violation of fundamental rights?

It is important to protect freedom of expression and assembly. On the contrary, reproductive rights must also be guaranteed.

Do you also have any criticism of the bill?

We critique the design in detail. For example, individual actions require intent or knowledge, so greater demands are required on the legal criterion of intent before the actions of self-proclaimed pro-life activists can be prohibited. However, the higher the requirements for certain actions, the more difficult it will be to prove them and, ultimately, the fewer cases will be covered by the criteria.

Are you asking for the threshold to be lowered?

Yes. We believe harassment is harmful even if it has limited intent. This is the case when people at least accept that they will impose their opinion on others or create an obstacle for them. Furthermore, the act of “exerting considerable pressure” should not be a so-called success crime.

That means?

In our opinion, this should not have led to the pregnant person being pressured, but rather it should be enough that this was possible, and the vulnerability of the person concerned should not be important. Furthermore, we criticize the criterion of imposition “against the apparent will.” This puts the responsibility on the pregnant person to convey that they reject the situation. But in general, you should be able to assume that imposed opinions are not desirable.

The DJB already formulated its criticism in a statement. Have you heard this?

So far there have been no changes to the bill. However, what makes us happy is that we were invited to the first hearing after the plenary debate to explain our position. I'm excited to see what comes of this.

There are more developments on the subject: the Reproductive Rights Commission convened by the federal government wants to present its vote on whether abortion should be regulated outside the penal code. In addition, they are awaiting the results of the Elsa study, which examines for the first time the life situation of unintentionally pregnant women. How do you evaluate the bill in this context?

The fact that abortion is fundamentally criminalized is intolerable. Here in Germany we like to look critically at the USA, but here too pregnant women sometimes have to travel to the next federal state for an abortion, sometimes up to 150 kilometers away. The sidewalk harassment bill can be a first step toward making the situation more bearable for pregnant people. But the great objective must be the decriminalization and destigmatization of abortion. It is extremely important that the empirical results of Elsa's study come out. It is to be hoped that the commission will also recommend regulation outside the penal code. Ultimately, all that remains is a call for the federal government to finally take the reproductive rights of pregnant people seriously.