#wegmit219a : Governmental Restrictions and the Importance of Online Hashtags in Feminist Movements Anne Laura Penning “The personal is political”—this slogan, that became popular by U.S. American feminist movements in the 1960s to highlight the connection be- tween individual experiences and politi- cal structures (McCann and Seung- Kyung 191), appears to be gaining mo- mentum again, this time in the context of online movements. With social media widely accessible, the personal becomes not only political but also something to post about, as seen with recent hashtag movements like #metoo. A similar femi- nist protest movement started in Ger- many in 2017, introducing the hashtag #wegmit219a to voice discontent regard- ing Germany’s Abortion Act. Almost 30 years after Germany’s reunification, the debate regarding the abortion legislation in the German Penal Code thus resur- faces. Similar to former debates between East and West Germany around 1990 fo- cusing particularly on §219a that prohib- its the “promotion” of abortions, there- fore e.g. banning any information on websites indicating even the possibility of an abortion, current protests and so- cial media movements also centre on said paragraph and aim at abolishing it with the help of internet campaigns (“Weg Mit §219a”). This paper will pri- marily focus on #wegmit219a movement and discuss whether its online discourse presents a useful tool to provoke change within the German legal system. Draw- ing on the origin and the development of the §219a, I argue that the Abortion Act exemplifies Germany’s antiquated stance on womanhood in opposition to Germany’s image as a self-proclaimed progressive and liberal state. Historical Background Since 1871, §218 of the German Pe- nal Code has been regulating the termi- nation of pregnancy, deeming it a crimi- nal act (Schmid). Until 1927, women get- ting abortions could be imprisoned for at least six months—afterwards, abortions for medical reasons were legally permit- ted (Bundeszentrale für politische Bild- ung). During the Nazi regime, the legis- lation in Germany was tightened drasti- cally; in addition to wanting more Le- bensraum, one of the fundamental aims of Nazi Germany was the preservation of the “Aryan” race. German women need- ed to provide children for the sake of the German family and nation, whereas 70 SATURA VOL. 2 “non-Aryans” were forcibly sterilized or had to abort (Tuomala 289-305). Under Nazi rule, the original §218 was re-intro- duced to the German Penal Code, stating that German women getting abortions could be imprisoned for up to two years. In 1934, this law was exacerbated even further: abortion was punished with the death penalty so as not to demolish the “life force” of the German nation (Notz). In 1933, §219a was introduced, which prohibited doctors and institutions to actively “promote” abortions. After the Nazi regime and during the division of Germany, the amendment of the penal code was repealed through efforts from the occupying nations (Notz). The abortion legislation changed in the two respective states: in West Ger- many, abortion remained a criminal of- fence but was allowed in special cases, such as for medical reasons (Fisher 24). East Germany introduced its so-called “Muttipolitik” (“Mother politics”) in 1972, which was “aimed at improving the compatibility of employment and moth- erhood” (24). It introduced more per- missive abortion and contraception laws according to which access to abortions within the first 13 weeks of pregnancy and free contraception was granted (24). It is noteworthy that the socialist gov- ernment in East Germany opted for a more permissive approach, undoubtedly linking labour force and reproductive freedom with each other, “defining wo- men as both producers and reproducers” (22). In its neighbouring capitalist state, West Germany, the abortion law re- mained more restrictive and closer to the former Nazi legislations. Abortion here was defined as “a statement against the West German family model, and thus, in a way, precluded one from taking up membership in the national commu- nity” (Frankfurth 58). Bearing children was once again synonymous with providing for the nation. The reunification process eventu- ally also addressed the demand for a united abortion legislation, quickly lead- ing to a heated debate between West and East German legislators and activists. The two different laws were initially left in place until the parliament passed a new abortion law or, rather, an amended version of West Germany’s legislation, permitting abortions after an obligatory pro-life counselling in the first twelve weeks (Wuerth 601-02; Frankfurth 61). This decision of simply overwriting East German legislations with West German laws illustrates the reunification process in its entirety: West Germany as the “winner of the global contestation of lib- eral capitalism against Soviet social- ism... shape[d] the discourse of reunifi- cation and transition in Germany... [and] gave expression to the hierarchical rela- tionship between East and West” (Frankfurth 52). The inclusion of the mandatory pro-life counselling in par- ticular appears like a very stealthy way of incorporating West Germany’s original 71 SATURA VOL. 2 stance on abortion, in which “the em- bryo became... a future member of the national community” (59). Hence, the dominant discourse centred around the protection of the embryo, ergo putting the preservation of the German nuclear family and the continuity of the nation before women’s welfare (60). West Ger- many was understood as the epitome of a modern European state, “defin[ing] Ger- manness in terms of a purely West Ger- man understanding... [leaving] the citi- zens of East Germany... to abandon their political and social past and conform en- tirely to Western norms” (Fisher 22). “§219a still defines abortions as (non-punishable) criminal acts nowa- days and thus forbids health insurances to pay for the service” (Ferree 313). Even though the state supposedly supports pregnant women this way (313), the wording of the paragraph suggests oth- erwise (“§219a Werbung Für Den Ab- bruch Der Schwangerschaft”). The Abor- tion Act makes abortions more accessible for women from former West Germany, but still poses several obstacles for women to overcome in general: financial demands, a mandatory pro-life oriented counselling session and the need to find a doctor or clinic where abortions are be- ing carried out. The mandatory counsel- ling session illustrates the state’s reluc- tance to grant women autonomy. Fur- thermore, the necessity to attend a counselling session seems to suggest that women from former East Germany acted immorally when getting abortions without having to seek counselling (Frankfurth 61). According to Yvonne Frankfurth, it is evident that “progressiveness was being defined in terms of the West Ger- man ideal of the breadwinner-housewife structure, in which women featured pri- marily as social and biological reproduc- ers” (62). This highly gendered model that dominated the abortion discourse and gender politics in the 1990s will pro- vide the framework for a comparison with the current debate surrounding §219a. Since the Abortion Act has not been modified yet again, it seems that the notion of women’s main role as bio- logical reproducers, even in a time where gender equality is being promoted in pol- itics to a certain extent (e.g. with the women’s quota), remains the predomi- nant discourse today. The Pro-Choice Movement Debates surrounding the Abortion Act have been numerous since its intro- duction; as early as in 1905, the “Alliance for Protection of Mothers and Sexual Re- forms” demanded free access to contra- ceptives, more information and educa- tion services as well the abolishment of §218 (Notz). New feminist movements were found in West Germany after WWII and in a united Germany after the reuni- fication process, demanding similar if not equal reforms with the slogan “My 72 SATURA VOL. 2 belly belongs to me” (Schmid). Similar to prior protest movements, the current social media outcry and protest move- ment also demands the total abolish- ment of §218, but focuses primarily on the repeal of §219a. The protest started after media re- ports revealed the indictment of a doctor from Giessen, Hänel. She was sentenced to a 6,000 Euro fine for publicly promot- ing abortions on her website (Hild), meaning that Hänel openly used the term “Schwangerschaftsabbruch” (“Abortion”) on her website and allowed patients to request more information. It is debatable whether this can already be perceived as a promotion of abortions and not simply as providing information about the services being offered at her office. Hänel’s very public case caused the German Bündnis für Sexuelle Selbst- bestimmung (“Alliance for Sexual Self- Determination”) to start an online cam- paign in support of Hänel and other doc- tors in similar positions. The alliance ar- gues that sexual self-determination is a human right and thus demands “the im- mediate repeal of §219a of the German [Penal] Code and free access to infor- mation about abortion” (“Weg mit §219a”). Before Hänel’s sentence, the al- liance published Hänel’s petition on chance.org and triggered a social media storm by introducing the internet cam- paign Weg mit §219a (Repeal §219a) at the beginning of 2018. At the heart of the campaign was a call for photos, mainly portraits with a tape labelled “§219a” covering the (photographed) person’s mouth, shared on all social media plat- forms using the hashtag #wegmit219a. After the initial photo campaign, the hashtag stuck and was then used for problematizing the debate surrounding the paragraph and abortion rights online. As of June 2019, the hashtag has been used 2,808 times on Instagram alone (“#wegmit219a”). However, the movement did not remain an online phenomenon, but nu- merous magazines and newspapers (e.g. Spiegel and Zeit) kept track of the story and the campaign. In addition to this print coverage, the Bündnis für Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung organized two offline campaign days in Berlin in 2018 and 2019—the second one sparking nation- wide protests in 28 cities all over Ger- many, challenging the government’s so- called compromise and demanding an immediate repeal of the paragraph. This transition from a movement confined to the capital of Germany to a nation-wide movement illustrates the growing sig- nificance of the movement’s cause within the public sphere. Moreover, it demonstrates how the movement cannot simply be described as an online-hash- tag movement. It seems to be relevant in both online and offline spaces, indeed, its online presence helps spreading the word, documents new developments and achievements, and brings people to- gether for protests that take place out- side of the online world. Hence, it ap- pears as if the introduction of the hash- 73 SATURA VOL. 2 tag and internet campaign as a starting point of the movement helped further the cause significantly, both by using an important case that was already covered by news media as a stepping stone to promote its interests, and in bringing people to the streets. Governmental Restriction and Censor- ship The government’s persistence to keep §219a in the German Penal Code can be viewed critically in several ways. Ban- ning the promotion of abortions sug- gests that abortions might be promoted by doctors in the first place — even though doctors are generally not allowed to promote any sort of service for their own financial gain (Bundesärztekam- mer)—and thus creates an almost apoc- alyptic image of a drastically increasing abortion rate after the possible lift of the ban. The term promotion itself describes an “activity that supports or encourages a cause, venture, or aim [and/or] the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness” (“Promotion”). From an economic perspective, this suggests that doctors would actively promote their abortion services to make more profit. It further insinuates that a heightened public awareness and unrestricted, eas- ier access to information would auto- matically bias women towards a pro- abortion decision and therefore cause an increase in abortions. This scenario il- lustrates a rather antiquated view of wo- men, removes their agency and under- mines their autonomy. It implies that choices need to be made for women in- stead of by them. Similarly, the term promotion evokes associations with advertisements promoting e.g. fashion trends or holiday vacations. Equating these aspects turns a medical procedure like an abortion into a mere luxury rather than a right for all women, regardless of their economic status, and furthermore disregards the fact that abortions can constitute a ne- cessity for women. Frankfurth high- lights this problematic view in the fol- lowing excerpt: Placing abortion in this. . . framework seems to suggest that the penal code serves as a national anchor of moral ideas and that, consequently, it is a woman’s moral responsibility to cherish the advent of a pregnancy, regardless of whether it is (un)wanted. Moreover, [this idea] acutely fails to acknowledge that abortion is not per se a statement against motherhood. Rather, such a view disregards the multi- tude of reasons that may count towards a woman’s decision for choosing to have an abortion. It further ignores that some women wanting an abortion may already be mothers, who decide against having another child. (Frankfurth 61) The fact that the paragraph remains a relic from Nazi Germany seems even more problematic. Other legislations from this time have been nullified due to 74 SATURA VOL. 2 their segregating, racist notions and op- pressive nature (Beck 25-100). It can be argued that the Abortion Act does op- press women since it restricts their free choice in regard to this particular deci- sion by imposing obstacles on the possi- bility of an abortion. Nonetheless, the German government has only recently, in February, 2019 decided to merely re- form §219a in reply to the protest move- ment. The reform consists of what both the federal government and German me- dia outlets have titled “a compromise” (see e.g. “Paragraf 219a”). The paragraph itself remains intact and within the Ger- man Penal Code. However, doctors are now allowed to publicly inform their pa- tients about their abortion services, e.g. by stating it on their websites. They are permitted to refer them to other author- ities for further information on the topic, e.g. by linking specific websites author- ized by the state (“Paragraf 219a”). The government also decided to provide young women up to the age of 22 years with the birth control pill for free (the expenses must be paid by their respec- tive health insurance). Additionally, the German Medical Association is in- structed to maintain a register with doc- tors, clinics etc. carrying out abortions (“Paragraf 219a”). The register is sup- posed to contain information regarding the applied methods and is scheduled to be updated monthly and published online by the Federal Agency for Civic Education. Yet, this compromise still does not grant women unlimited and quick access to information. Furthermore, doctors, supposed authorities in their fields, are still not allowed to freely provide more detailed information about their ser- vices—the state apparatus decides which information to provide, and where to make it accessible. This approach of withholding information or regulating the distribution of information can be interpreted as censorship. Even though censorship is traditionally thought of as “a device for protecting official beliefs and ideologies and for suppressing those that are opposed to them,” it could also “be used to withhold facts or to prevent their dissemination” (Matthews 21). It is possible to argue that the government does provide the necessary information. However, if access to information was the main reason for the reform to be in- troduced, it seems inconsistent that doc- tors are still not allowed to provide the relevant information on their own web- sites—a step that would make the rele- vant information much more easily ac- cessible to women. Instead, it seems that the state wants to maintain its control and power over the information on abor- tions. This can be interpreted not only as the state exerting power over women but also as spreading and legitimizing the state’s dominant ideology on the matter. The personal remains political since re- production politics are still very much used to place women within societal power structures. In fact, the so-called 75 SATURA VOL. 2 compromise that was reached politically highlights how non-violent protests and hashtag movements are only able to ac- complish small reforms. This reform seems like a silencing of the protestors— but can or should this tiny improvement in the legislation stop them from de- manding more? The Personal Remains Political The analysis of both historical and recent abortion debates in Germany highlights how an “ultra-saturated me- dia and communication environment provides ample opportunities for activ- ists to resist, to exert their agency, to self-represent themselves and to defy the structural constraints” (Cammaerts 120). The protest movement led by the Bündnis für Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung became publicly known in a short time due to the introduction of an online hashtag. As the internet campaign shows, the statement “the personal is political” is still valid today. Indeed, nowadays it seems to be a successful strategy to become visible and share one’s own stories online in order to form a larger movement. In this light, I argue that the cur- rent debate in Germany can be described as a resurfacing discourse from the 1990s. To be precise, the recent demand for a reform of the Abortion Act appears to be similar to the debates between the two former states of Germany: the hashtag movement’s demands and East Germany’s more liberal abortion law on one side and its opponents and West Germany’s more restrictive approach on the other side. It can be said that feminist movements’ ongoing quest, either for the complete abolishment of the Abor- tion Act or the repeal of the “promotion ban,” has not been met. Instead, the preservation of Christian values seems to dominate the state’s decision in keeping the paragraph. This becomes highly transparent when analysing arguments from political parties and organizations (e.g. the Catholic Church and the March for Life) supporting (the exacerbation of) §219a. Thus, the paragraph is used as a tool to undermine women’s bodily self- determination and autonomy, which ul- timately leads to the solidification of pa- triarchal structures in society. It is not possible to unpack and discuss all intricacies of the abortion rights discourse in Germany in the scope of one paper. Further political repercus- sions and consequences need to be ana- lysed in the frame of the online and of- fline protest movement “Weg mit §219a” to determine the success of a pro- test movement that acts on these two scales. It is also necessary for this analy- sis to include other legislations concern- ing womanhood, such as childcare and the health care system, in order to create a holistic understanding of women’s rights in society 76 SATURA VOL. 2 Bibliography “§219a Werbung für den Abbruch der Schwangerschaft.” Dejure.org, dejure.org/ge- setze/StGB/219a.html. Accessed 6 May 2019. “#wegmit219a.” Query on instagram.com. www.instagram.com/explore/tags/wegmit219a. Accessed 30 June 2019. Bundesärztekammer. “Arzt—Werbung—Öffentlichkeit: Hinweise und Erläuterungen.” Bundesärztekammer.de, www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/pdf- Ordner/Recht/Arzt-Werbung-Oeffentlichkeit.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2019. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. “1975: Streit um straffreie Abtreibung vor dem Verfassungsgericht.” Bpb.de, 24 Feb. 2015, www.bpb.de/politik/hintergrund/aktuell/201776/1975- streit-um-straffreie-abtreibung. Accessed 15 Apr. 2019. Cammaerts, Bart. “Protest Logics and the Mediation Opportunity Structure.” European Journal of Communication, vol. 27, 2012, pp. 117-34. Worldcat.org, doi: 10.1177/0267323112441007. Accessed 19 March 2019. Ferree, Myra Marx. “Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Framing in the Abortion Debates of the United States and Germany.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 109, no. 2, 2003, pp. 304-44. Fisher, Pamela. “Abortion in Post-Communist Germany: The End of Muttipolitik and a Still Birth for Feminism.” Womens Studies International Forum, vol. 28, no. 1, 2005, pp. 21-36. Frankfurth, Yvonne. “Mothers, Morality and Abortion: The Politics of Reproduction in the Formation of the German Nation.” Journal of International Women’s Studies, vol. 18, no.3, 2017, pp. 51-65. Frei, Norbert. Vergangenheitspolitik: Die Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NS- Vergangenheit. Beck, 1996. Hild, Angelika. “The German Controversy on Paragraph 219a on ‘Promoting’ Abortions: Paragraph 219a—Ein Fall für die Geschichtsbücher.” Young Feminist Europe, 23 Jan. 2018, www.youngfeminist.eu/2018/01/german-controversy-paragraph-219a-abortions. Accessed 14 June 2019. Matthews, A. S. “Censorship, Access to Information and Public Debate.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, vol. 55, Oct. 1980, pp. 21-31. McCann, Carole R., and Seung-Kyung Kim. Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives. Routledge, 2017. Notz, Gisela. “Geschichte des Widerstands gegen den Strafrechtsparagrafen 218.” Proceedings of the Conference on Mein Körper—meine Verantwortung—meine Entscheidung: Weg mit §218! July 9 and 10 2016, Berlin. Bündnis für Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung, 2016. www.sexuelle- 77 SATURA VOL. 2 selbstbestimmung.de/6669/geschichte- des-widerstands-gegen-den-strafrechtsparagrafen- 218/. Accessed 20 June 2019. “Paragraf 219a: Koalition will Zugang zu Informationen über Abtreibungen erleichtern.” ZEIT ONLINE, 28 Jan. 2019, www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2019-01/paragraf-219a-werbeverbot-geset- zentwurf-schwangerschaftsabbrueche. Accessed 18 Apr. 2019. “Promotion.” Oxford Dictionaries English, Oxford Dictionaries, en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini- tion/promotion. Accessed 9 June 2019. Schmid, Sandra. “Historische Debatten (7): Abtreibungsparagraf 218.” Deutscher Bundestag, 16 Sept. 2009, www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/25475709_debatten07 200096. Accessed 20 June 2019. Tuomala, Jeffrey C. “Nuremberg and the Crime of Abortion.” Liberty University School of Law at Dig- ital Commons, vol. 42, 2011, pp. 283-394. “Weg mit §219a: Recht auf Information zum Schwangerschaftsabbruch.” Bündnis Für Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung, 30 Jan. 2018. www.sexuelle-selbstbestimmung.de/7483/kampagne-2018- weg-mit-%C2%A7-219a-recht-auf-information-zu-schwangerschaftsabbruechen/. Accessed 5 May 2019. Wuerth, Andrea. “National Politics/Local Identities: Abortion Rights Activism in Post-Wall Berlin.” Feminist Studies, vol. 25, no. 3, 1999, pp. 601-31. . 78 SATURA VOL. 2