After the failed election, Brosius-Gersdorf attacks the media and anonymous politicians – the statement in full

Following the failure of her election as a constitutional judge , Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf has spoken publicly for the first time about the allegations against her. In a detailed statement, which is reproduced in full below, she firmly refutes the accusations.

On media coverage of the Federal Constitutional Court election

1. The reporting in parts of the media about me and my positions in connection with the election as a judge of the Federal Constitutional Court was inaccurate and incomplete, unobjective, and lacking in transparency. It was not fact-based, but rather driven by the goal of preventing the election. Labeling me as "ultra-left" or "left-wing radical" is defamatory and unrealistic. Citing anonymous sources is also unacceptable, especially when that source is a Minister of Justice.

2. Individual state officials must also accept criticism. What reason is there for a member of a state government, especially one from the judiciary, to speak anonymously in a debate about the election of a constitutional judge? At a time when politicians are rightly demanding greater protection from verbal attacks and discussing a "digital ban on face coverings," anonymous statements from politically responsible state officials are disconcerting. Participating anonymously in media criticism, even to the point of insulting others, while simultaneously demanding protection from insults for oneself is contradictory.

3. A detailed and complete examination of the content of my academic contributions would have shown that the focus of my research is constitutional, social and educational law, including topics such as the regulation and financing of schools, the safeguarding of municipal services in Germany, the management of demographic change, the reform of our social security systems and the digitalisation of administration.

If one categorizes my academic positions politically, a picture of the democratic center emerges. One-sided attributions ("ultra-left" and "left-wing radical") lack any factual basis. They are based on a selective and incomplete selection of individual topics and theses, with individual sentences taken out of context to create a distorted picture.

On specific topics: 3.1. The reporting on my position on abortion reform lacked any factual basis. The main accusation in the media is that I deny unborn life the guarantee of human dignity and support abortion up until birth. This is false. Human life is entitled to the fundamental right to life from the moment of implantation. I have always advocated for this. The statement that I am in favor of legalizing and (distinguishing from) making abortion up until birth unpunished is inaccurate and constitutes a slander.

It is true that I pointed out the constitutional dilemma that arises if unborn life, from implantation, is granted the same guarantee of human dignity as a human being after birth. Under the prevailing legal premise that human dignity cannot be weighed against the fundamental rights of third parties such as the pregnant woman, abortion would not be permissible under any circumstances. Abortion for medical reasons, where the life or health of the woman is at risk, would also be ruled out. However, the long-standing legal position is that abortion is permissible for medical reasons. My aim and task as a researcher was and is to point out this problem and inconsistencies in existing law, and to identify possible solutions for a consistent regulation of abortion.

The only constitutional solution is that either human dignity is capable of being weighed against others or it does not apply to unborn life. I have highlighted this necessary constitutional discussion without thereby advocating the position that unborn life is without protection. On the contrary: Even if human dignity only applies to humans from birth, unborn life would not be without protection. From the moment of implantation, unborn life is entitled to the fundamental right to life, something I have always advocated. The accusation that I advocate abortion up until birth and am "critical of life" is false and completely unfounded. My publications on this subject cannot be misunderstood in this way either. The constitutional dilemma I have highlighted is presented in an abbreviated form and used to inaccurately insinuate that I do not advocate the fundamental right to life from the moment of implantation.

3.2. The concern and subject of the academic debate on the religious headscarf worn by legal trainees were differences in case law regarding the state's requirement of neutrality. While a headscarf ban for teachers at state schools is supposedly unconstitutional, a corresponding ban for legal trainees is supposedly permissible in certain situations in the courtroom. I saw a contradiction in this. In both cases, a distinction must be made between the state, to which a neutrality requirement (prohibition of identification) applies, and civil servants exercising their fundamental freedom. The state does not identify with the exercise of its employees' fundamental rights. However, this does not mean that a headscarf ban is always unconstitutional. Even if a headscarf ban for public officials cannot be based on the state's requirement of neutrality, it can, in individual cases, be legitimized by the requirement of moderation for civil servants. Here, too, my position is incorrectly represented.

3.3. It has been reported that I intend to undermine electoral principles, particularly equal voting rights, by introducing parity models for the election of the German Bundestag. It is true that I have studied the legal question of whether the requirement enshrined in the Basic Law to promote the effective implementation of equal rights for women and men justifies interference with electoral principles. This question is controversial in legal scholarship and has not been resolved by the highest courts.

Prof. Dr. Frauke Brosius‑Gersdorf, LL.M. Potsdam, July 15, 2025

Here you will find