Abortion Penal Code paragraphs to be deleted

Empress Maria Theresa introduced the ban on abortion in 1768. As a result of illegal abortion, countless women have died or suffered the consequences.

For this reason, abortion was exempted from punishment in 1975 with the introduction of the time limit restriction. However, abortion remained in the penal code and is still punishable by up to 1 year in prison.

Parliament should now remove abortion from the Criminal Code and never replace it, as Canada did in 1988.

Why are we calling for the removal of abortion and the penalty of 1 year in prison from the Criminal Code?

Among other things, women decide to end an unwanted pregnancy if they see no possibility of responsibly bringing a child (or another one) into the world. . Threatening women with punishment if they terminate an unwanted pregnancy in no way solves the underlying problem that the woman cannot or does not want to carry a pregnancy to term. On the contrary, every punishment exacerbates the problem itself. What does a legislator hope to achieve by punishing a woman with a 1-year prison sentence? Such a punishment is not socially acceptable and should no longer pose a threat. This dead law must be abolished.

In a democracy, the question arises as to how our elected representatives in parliament, who are paid with taxpayers’ money, are able to uphold such a law – especially since more and more women hold political decision-making positions, including the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Family Affairs.

The ban is based purely on historical reasons.

In Austria it was introduced by Maria Theresia, and in Germany by Kaiser Wilhelm I. In each case, the aims were to increase the population, partly because of the numerous wars, and to generate more military personnel. Or as the k.u.k. War Ministry put it in 1916:

“In view of the great losses of the most valuable human material that the war entails, the army administration must dutifully pay particular attention to all measures that are suitable for promoting the replacement of the losses or preventing a reduction in this replacement.

In the second direction, the use of contraceptives and abortion play an important role. They counteract the natural equalization that would already occur during the war, but even more so after its end, as sexual intercourse would increase considerably.

As a result, this harmful behavior is increasing and will increase even more in the population, especially at a time when the state’s interest is more focused than ever on preventing it.”

In Germany, the ban on abortion (§218) was introduced at the same time as the founding of the German Empire in 1871. This marked the end of three wars of unification that had been fraught with losses, and the ban on abortion was intended to compensate for this loss.

Susanne Riegler has documented this for Austria in the film “Der lange Arm der Kaiserin” (The Empress‘ Long Arm).

It is monarchies, dictators and warring states that prohibit abortion (and also contraception). Under Maria Theresa and Hitler, abortion provision was even threatened with the death penalty and the last woman was executed for it in Vienna in January 1945.

In contrast, people in a democracy have fought for self-determination in the most intimate areas of life, their own sexuality and fertility.

In Canada, for example, the criminal provision on abortion was struck down without replacement by the Supreme Court in 1988. The reasoning was: “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus a violation of her security of the person.”

Over 30 years of very positive experience confirms that women do not need the threat of punishment. Jula Hughes, a lawyer working in Canada, summarized the experience as follows: “A special regulation of abortion in criminal law is not only counterproductive, there is also no sensible reason to regulate abortion specifically under health law. The chance of a patient coming to harm during an abortion is much higher under threat of punishment. As Canadian experience has shown, decriminalization without replacement facilitates the counselling and treatment of patients, especially in crisis situations. The decriminalization of abortion contributes to the equality of women without triggering regulatory problems in the healthcare system.”

The 50th anniversary of the introduction of the time limit restriction on January 1, 2025 is the perfect occasion to abolish the penal provision dating back to the monarchy.

The following articles describe Canada’s experience and the reasons for decriminalization: