Doctoral dissertation: On Friday, Vordgründing was concerned about the union of possible scientific misconduct. The Austrian “Plagiatsjäger” Stefan Weber discovered 23 excerpts in the doctoral dissertation of Bronius, which correspond to the thesis of the habilitation of her husband Hubertus Gersdorf. Meanwhile, Weber made it clear that he did not blame Brozius-Hersdorf. It is by no means obvious that she recorded in the work of her husband in the 1990s, because she first published her work. It is more likely that the couple, which was already married at that time, developed some thoughts together, not corresponding to the adequate designation of this. If this Lapsus can be proven at all, it should not make Brozius-Hersdorf unclear.
Abortion: In fact, CDU/CSU was primarily associated with the position of Brozius-Hersdorf. A professor of lawyers was a member of the government commission in the last period of elections, which should check the possible reform of the right to abortion. Brozius-Hersdorf wrote the chapter on the constitutional structure and came to the conclusion that the extensive legalization of the cessation of pregnancy would not violate the basic law.
Against previous precedent law
At the same time, she opposed the previous precedent law of the Federal Constitutional Court, which demanded in 1975 and 1993, that abortions in principle should be prohibited and classified as “injustice”. From this, the main “duty of a woman” should be “worn by a child”. These basic assumptions in the Carlsruhe court were forgotten, because the court allowed the legislator to be aborted “unpunished” in the first 12 weeks if the woman received recommendations for the protection of life.
Today, in more than 30 years, the Federal Constitutional Court, but probably without Brozius-Hersdorf, will argue differently if there were any cases. In the end, the share of women in Bverfg is much higher today, and in society the right to self -determination of a woman about her body is also more applicable than then. Brozius-Hersdorf can launch open doors with her position in Karlsruhe.
Brozius-Hersdorf claimed in the report of the commission that there were good reasons not to give the embryo/fruit the protection of inanimate human dignity, but only by birth. However, the embryo/fetus should not be defenseless in accordance with fundamental rights. For him, article 2, the main right to life, should be applied. The closer the birth moves, the more the protection of the basic rights of the unborn should be considered with the fundamental rights of pregnant women. According to Brozius-Hersdorf, in general, they must remain illegal.
Polemic improper interpretation
Thus, this is the incorrect interpretation of the polemic, which Brozius-Hersdorf wants to put unborn children. First of all, he wants to strengthen the rights of women to an unborn person, especially in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. This goal is by no means marginal by law and, given the so fewer women, friendly, the case of Karlsruhe’s precedent right. The direction against Brozius-Hersdorf can hardly establish an alliance on this.
Vaccination obligation: When in the third year of the pandemic, finally, there was a vaccine against Covid, the company also discussed a vaccination obligation. Brozius-Hersdorf continued vaccination, like most legal professors: inside, as constitutional, since the interests of the general public justified the intervention of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, there was no general obligation to vaccinate, but only a short -term obligation for vaccines for the health and care sector.
At that time, however, Brozius-Hersdorf continued than her colleague: inside. It was believed that it was possible that there is a “constitutional obligation to introduce a general obligation to vaccinate.” The legislator would not have a choice that he had to present vaccination in order to save society. Well, after that it was clear that the pandemic can be completed without general vaccination. It is also unusual to derive the legislator’s obligations to protect in such a specific method of action. Nevertheless, Brozius-Hersdorf only wanted to “think” about this position and did not present it with reprint. Thus, she did not make herself “not clear”, but as a deputy of the Brandenburg CDU Saskii Ludwig did.
Covers the basic law
AFD -Brown: Brozius-Hersdorf is also accused of begging to ban the AFD on the current show of Marcus Lanz last year, “if there is enough material.” It is unclear why this position should oppose Brozius-Hersdorf as a constitutional judge, because it is covered by the basic law, which provides for “defensive democracy” and clearly allows party prohibitions.
Brozus-Hersdorf, probably, will not even be foreseen in the AFD ban procedure. Because the decision, regarding whether the ban should be filed, should be resolved politically, especially in the Bundestag. How the court ultimately decides is a legal issue. In which the professor did not devote himself to his expressions.
What next? Green asked for a special meeting of Bundestag in the coming week to make up for the Brosius-Gersdorf elections (and two other candidates: INSIDE Günter Spinner and Ann-Katrin Kaufhold). The coalition is probably not the time. Bundestag President Julia Klekner spoke about a new attempt in the next week of the session. It will be from September 10.
MIRSH: No “ultralink -activist”
The head of the SPD parliamentary group Matias Mirsch suggested that the Brozius-Hersdorf had previously asked himself questions of the CDU/CSU deputy to show that she was not an “activist from ultrasound”, according to some members of the CDU/CSU parliament. The Union first did not consider this proposal.