Candidate for Karlsruhe: Brosius-Gersdorf ties candidacy to conditions

Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, the SPD's candidate for the Federal Constitutional Court, would not accept her nomination under one condition. She reported on Lanz about receiving death threats and defended her statements on abortion and mandatory vaccination.

Following the postponed election for Federal Constitutional Court judge, SPD candidate Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf addressed the allegations against her in a long interview on the ZDF program Markus Lanz. She stated that she doesn't yet know what will happen next. She needs some time to decide. However, one thing is clear: If the Federal Constitutional Court is threatened with damage, "I would not stick to my nomination. That is damage for which I cannot be held responsible. I also don't want to be responsible for a government crisis in this country, because we don't know what will happen afterward. These are all aspects that I take incredibly seriously."

At the same time, the lawyer criticizes the culture of debate in Germany. What worries her: "How do we deal with opinions and positions that one doesn't like, that don't appeal to one?" Brosius-Gersdorf reported on Lanz about death threats she and her staff had received: "Via email, mail with suspicious content that was sent to my chair," the lawyer said. She had asked her staff to stop working at the chair as a precaution. "And there were videos on social networks. I stopped watching them after a certain point, but friends, family, and others watched them. And there was, among other things, a pop-up video where my picture was shown and I was punched in the face. Of course, that worries me. Of course, it burdens me. And it's also out of the question."

At the same time, she accuses some media outlets and journalists of "incomplete and unobjective reporting," without naming them. She has been called ultra-left, left-wing radical, left-wing extremist, she reports. "And what I find particularly disturbing is that last weekend the Archbishop of Bamberg spoke of an 'abyss of intolerance and contempt for humanity.' I have to honestly say: I can't tolerate this any longer. I find it infamous." Everyone who knows her knows that the opposite is true. The focus of her academic projects is the effort to protect the socially disadvantaged and minorities. "And I would simply like to remind everyone that representatives of the Catholic Church are also bound by the constitutional values of our Basic Law, and thus also by my human dignity and my personal rights."

Criticism of position on abortion

Brosius-Gersdorf's opinion on abortion is particularly in the spotlight. The lawyer told ZDF: "It is wrong that I said I am in favor of abortion up until birth. I have never advocated for the legalization or decriminalization of abortion up until birth." Nor did she write that an embryo has no right to life. However, there is a "conflict between the fundamental rights of the embryo on the one hand, its right to life, and the fundamental rights of women on the other." Brosius-Gersdorf's position: In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo's right to life has less weight, but in the later stages of pregnancy, its "right to life" has more weight. "That is precisely the dilemma and the problem at hand," she says. "Then you cannot justify abortion at any time, not even in cases of medical indication. These are cases in which the pregnancy, life, or health of the woman is at risk."

Self-criticism of AfD statement

The lawyer does not directly address the AfD's accusation that Brosius-Gersdorf wants to eliminate its members. She has never directly advocated for an AfD ban. However, she did express dissatisfaction in a Markus Lanz broadcast last July: "Namely, that a party ban would not solve the problem of its supporters. Anyone who watched the show knows, of course, what I meant by that: that a ban process does not solve the problems that cause people to turn away from the democratic center. That was what I meant, and I think everyone could understand that. But that was dissatisfaction."

She wanted to clarify that the hurdles for banning a party are high. "But if the conditions are met, if careful research and examination show that a party is posing an attack on the free democratic basic order, then our democracy, a defensive democracy, must have the opportunity to take action against enemies of the constitution. I stand for that here and now."

Thinking about compulsory vaccination

It is also false that she called for the introduction of mandatory vaccination during the coronavirus pandemic. Lanz quotes a text from November 2021. It states: "A general mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 does not violate the Basic Law. One can even consider whether there is now a constitutional obligation to introduce mandatory vaccination."

"The key word is 'reflection,'" says Brosius-Gersdorf. "That's what we do every day. Weighing arguments, pros and cons. What speaks against the argument, what speaks for it? And then, at the end, we come to a conclusion."

As a legal scholar, it is her position to engage with current political issues, says Brosius-Gersdorf. "This is something the world was also discussing at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. And I wanted to make a scientific contribution to it. And I think that's entirely legitimate, because it's important to point out that at that time, the state not only had an obligation to protect the freedom of people who, out of good reason, did not want to be vaccinated voluntarily, but it was also about protecting the health and freedom of people who did want to be vaccinated voluntarily." Today, however, one might view things differently, says the lawyer.

Important for Brosius-Gersdorf: "The Federal Constitutional Court is not a political office, but a legal one." However, every legal scholar also has positions. "That doesn't surprise anyone in Karlsruhe. In that respect, I don't think it's right to demand that it be someone who hasn't yet taken a position. Quite the opposite: I do understand that one should ensure that it's someone who has the trust and support of the voters," the lawyer said. She herself represents absolutely moderate positions from the middle of our society. Anyone can read that. "My academic work gives no cause for misunderstanding. And now I have the old weakness of expressing myself relatively clearly. But I think it's problematic to accuse someone of that."