taz: Ms. Schauws, the Hamm State Labor Court decided on Thursday in the case of the doctor Joachim Volz, who sued his Lippstadt clinic. He did not want to be prohibited from continuing to have medically indicated abortions there even after the Protestant and Catholic providers merged. How do you rate the result?
Ulle Schauws: It’s just one Success for Joachim Volzwho fought as a single doctor to be allowed to help women. The court confirmed the hospital’s instructions to him as chief physician, but rejected the instructions to him as an outpatient statutory health insurance doctor as invalid because there were no exceptions made – not even if there was a risk to life and limb. He can now treat women as necessary again both in his practice in Bielefeld and in his part-time work as a statutory health insurance doctor at the clinic. But despite everything, this success has a bitter aftertaste.
taz: Why?
Schauws: Because the court explicitly only made a decision on a case-by-case basis. So it applies to Joachim Volz, but to no one else at the hospital. So if he leaves the clinic at some point, the care for the women there will stop again. This decision also has no impact on the other affected clinics.
In the interview: Ulle Schauws
59, is the women’s policy spokeswoman for the Green parliamentary group in the Bundestag.
taz: You mean clinics where Catholic providers prohibit the entire institution from carrying out abortions for religious reasons.
Schauws: Exactly. And these clinics are currently increasing in number, through mergers like in Lippstadt or currently also in Flensburg. The supply situation for abortion is getting worse and worse, and the Hamm ruling has not changed anything. We are now even more challenged politically. It cannot be the case that in mergers like Mr. Volz, doctors have to fight for the right to adequately treat their patients in court in individual cases.
taz: And what should the political response look like?
Schauws: The law stipulates that the states must ensure adequate supplies. However, the states have so far been completely inadequate in complying with this, so we as a federal government have to act. Only with that Elsa study commissioned by the federal government We now have more information about how bad the situation is. The long-term goal is to get the abortion ban in Section 218 out of the Criminal Code. But on the way there we have to make urgent improvements, because otherwise the women affected will not receive any help. And that’s where we can start with the clinics.
taz: Abortions are mostly a matter of outpatient practices.
Schauws: True. But the number of doctors is continually declining. And we have leverage with the clinics. Regardless of whether they are Protestant, Catholic or non-denominational: Anyone who receives state money must also be responsible for the provision of care. And that also means offering terminations if these are not otherwise guaranteed.
taz: Now it is regulated by law that no one can be forced to take part in a demolition.
Schauws: That’s right, we can’t oblige a single doctor. But that can’t apply to an entire hospital. We could definitely oblige them to hire enough staff who are willing to do so. At the moment, a provider or a Catholic or other conservative chief physician can decide for entire clinics that they do not carry out abortions. We must make it clear that this right of refusal only applies to natural persons.
taz: You are demanding both in a motion that your group wants to submit to the Bundestag. What chances do you expect from a black-red coalition?
Schauws: Part of this coalition agrees with us. Our request corresponds to, what the SPD also demands: The clinics must be held responsible. And the Union must also adhere to the law – including the statutory provision mandate. We have a science minister who says women’s health is high on her agenda. I have to say: A good supply situation for abortion is an essential part of women’s health. Mrs. Bear has to behave herself.
taz: Now the Union and SPD have announced in the coalition agreement that they will improve care and also make abortions part of the health insurance system.
Schauws: But nothing has happened so far. We can’t wait forever, while the situation is getting worse and worse. That is why we are submitting this motion as opposition. Applying pressure is necessary. And we should also soon turn our attention to church labor law. The court did not do this in the Lippstadt case. But these special rights of the church need to be reformed – and not just with regard to abortion.