Classification
The Bundestag elections are on September 26. As a non-partisan ideological association, we cannot and do not wish to make any election recommendations, but we would like to call on you to vote! Make use of your right to vote!
Even if some people are disappointed by “politics” – we can all influence “politics” with our voting behavior. Our democracy needs commitment. If you don’t vote, you let others decide for you. So: exercise your right to vote, go to the polls and use and protect our democracy!
In the run-up to the Bundestag elections, we sent so-called “election test stones” to the parliamentary groups represented in the Bundestag. (We did not include the AfD, as this party represents a world view that is incompatible with our humanist values).
With the election test questions, we want to support interested voters in making an informed decision. We also use them to draw the parties’ attention to our own program, which we expect to be taken into account in upcoming coalition negotiations.
The feedback from the parties will be published here on the site and may be of help to you if you are still undecided.
We asked the parties about these topics
Topic 1: Democracy
As a valuable asset, our democracy needs special protection and care. Are you prepared to invest more state funds in the transfer of knowledge and facts, new (media) educational formats and new forms of citizen participation in the political debate and in finding solutions?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
Yes, a vibrant civil society is fundamental for political debate in our democracy. Committed people in initiatives, associations, clubs or NGOs strengthen cohesion, help to put important issues, such as the fight against racism, on the public agenda and contribute to the formation of public opinion. With a Democracy Promotion Act, we Greens want to provide sustainable, project-independent and unbureaucratic financial security for their commitment and that of initiatives and organizations that promote democracy. Nascent democrats need participatory and media skills as well as political education, which we will strengthen conceptually and financially as cross-cutting tasks in daycare centers, schools and youth welfare services. With citizens’ councils, we create the opportunity to incorporate the everyday experience of citizens into legislation on selected topics.
Response from CDU/CSU
The CDU and CSU want to promote political education, particularly in youth work. Participation creates acceptance for politics and our democratic system. This is all the more true in a country where people of different nationalities and cultural backgrounds live. We are committed to strengthening political education and the study of values: Only those who know how democracy works will be able to act democratically later on. This is why we also see projects to preserve the culture of remembrance as a permanent task. With the “Sites of German Democratic History” foundation, we will look back on great democratic moments at historical sites in order to strengthen the forces of civil society and the resilience of our democracy. We also want to expand the federal “Youth Remembers” program and bring contemporary witness work into the digital age.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, DIE LINKE wants to better support diverse volunteering and lower the barriers for social groups that are underrepresented in volunteering. We want to expand and secure structures that support volunteers. This includes barrier-free access to information. We want to expand the Freedom of Information Act into a transparency law. Information created with public funds must be publicly accessible free of charge in the spirit of open data. For a modern democracy, more co-determination and participation must be created at all levels and in all areas – from the European, international and municipal levels to companies and the economy. This is why DIE LINKE demands that popular initiatives, referendums and plebiscites must also be possible at federal level. We want to support and promote the instrument of citizens’ councils, according to which randomly drawn people from the middle of society draft solutions and issues.
Response from the FDP
We Free Democrats are committed to representative democracy. Our parliaments are the central places for discussion and decision-making. However, representative democracy also benefits from new instruments of citizen participation outside of elections. For us, parliaments are the decisive addressee and client for more citizen participation, for example through the possibility of citizen consultation by house parliaments, the expansion of the right of petition to include the “citizens’ plenary procedure” or through randomly selected citizens’ councils. Ultimately, only parliament makes legitimized decisions. The advisory mandate must therefore be clearly delimited and expectations clearly defined. The German Bundestag should also set up a digital platform on an open source basis with a list of projects that obliges state authorities and institutions to document their plans and considerations in future in the spirit of genuine freedom of information and to make them accessible for public comment. We want to lower the voting age for elections to the European Parliament and the German Bundestag to 16 and strengthen political education in all types of schools.
Response from the SPD
|
The promotion of democracy must be structurally anchored at municipal, state and federal level. We see new participation formats as a sensible way of countering a loss of trust in parliamentary democracy in society and involving citizens more closely in the political process. For us, the promotion of democracy and political education are inextricably linked. We want to achieve this by including the promotion of democracy as a state objective in the federal and state constitutions and by introducing a law to promote democracy. The exchange of scientific knowledge with society is also of particular importance. We will therefore provide more funding for open science and science communication. |
Topic 2: Social justice
Social inequality has increased further as a result of the pandemic. Huge fortunes are set against a growing number of precarious conditions. What are you doing to reduce such precarious conditions and the social divide? What measures will you take to prevent further social cuts?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
The gap between rich and poor has widened considerably in terms of income and wealth as well as upward mobility. We want to counteract this by expanding the social infrastructure, improving the education system, closing the gaps in social insurance and changing the minimum social security systems so that participation in social and cultural life is also possible. We Greens want to significantly improve the income situation of poorer sections of the population. To this end, we want to immediately raise the minimum wage to 12 euros, convert the basic income support into a guaranteed income, convert statutory health insurance and statutory pension insurance into a citizens’ insurance scheme, facilitate access to unemployment insurance for the self-employed and ensure that low-income earners also receive a pension above the basic income support with the guaranteed pension and an employer-financed minimum pension contribution.
Response from CDU/CSU
During the coronavirus pandemic, the CDU/CSU-led federal government secured hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly with the help of the short-time working allowance. The CDU and CSU now want to get those who have nevertheless lost their jobs back into work quickly. Not only job placement, but also lifelong learning plays a decisive role in this. Further education and training are the key to mastering the challenges that lie ahead. We are therefore launching an offensive for vocational education and training in the basic income support for jobseekers, for example to improve language skills and trainability. We want to restructure the offsetting of income in SGB II in order to create more incentives to take up employment and promote a gradual exit from Hartz IV. We will also significantly extend the rules on additional income for young people and young adults up to the age of 21 and during training for the first vocational qualification in benefit communities as part of the protection of young people.
Response from DIE LINKE
DIE LINKE wants to tax high assets and inheritances more heavily. Instead of a cheap tax on corporate profits, we want to tax profits – like all income. To this end, we want to reintroduce the wealth tax (1% on assets above 1 million, progressively increasing to 5% from 50 million, higher tax-free allowances for business assets). We want to cover the specific costs of the coronavirus crisis with a one-off wealth tax on assets above EUR 2 million. The payments will be spread over 20 years. DIE LINKE aims to abolish low wages: with a statutory minimum wage of 13 euros and generally binding collective agreements. Instead of involuntary part-time work, we want a right to full-time work. We are transforming temporary work and mini-jobs into good, socially secure employment relationships. With our climate jobs program, we will create at least 1 million good jobs over the next 10 years. Reducing overtime and a mild reduction in working hours to 35 hours per week will create 1 million more jobs. DIE LINKE is aiming for more investment in education, health and housing – our future investment program comprises 120 billion euros per year. All of this helps to overcome inequality and precarious working and living conditions and strengthens social cohesion.
Response from the FDP
Each and every individual should have the opportunity to advance both professionally and privately. The modern welfare state must be a springboard. It must encourage, unleash potential and truly reward effort. The aim must be to enable people to make career progress as quickly as possible. We Free Democrats want to open up opportunities through freedom – for a self-determined life. We want to introduce the Liberal Citizen’s Income and combine tax-financed social benefits such as unemployment benefit II (ALG II), basic income support in old age, assistance with living expenses or housing benefit into one benefit and at one government agency, also in the sense of a negative income tax. Self-earned income should be credited at a lower rate than today. This is how we want to combine the tax and social systems. Basic income support must become less bureaucratic, more dignified, more performance-oriented, more digital and, above all, more opportunity-oriented.
Response from the SPD
By facilitating access to short-time working benefits, we have secured many jobs during the pandemic and continue to do so. We have increased the benefits due to the longer duration of short-time working.
We will fundamentally revise the basic income support and develop it into a citizen’s income. The standard rates in the new citizens’ income must be sufficient for a life in dignity and enable people to participate in society. We will further develop the criteria for determining the standard rate and involve those affected and social organizations.
The positive experiences during the pandemic with easier access to basic income support confirm our view that the review of assets and the size of housing must be suspended within the first two years. We will increase the protected assets.
Children and all young people should have the same opportunities regardless of their background. Our concept of basic child protection consists of two central components. Firstly, an infrastructure such as free daycare centers, all-day schooling, a social infrastructure and free public transport. Secondly, a new child benefit to secure their livelihood – the higher the need for support, the higher the child benefit.
We will make income taxation fairer. The current tax system places too great a burden on middle incomes in particular. The financial burden of coping with the crisis must not lead to an additional tax burden for the already hard-pressed majority of citizens. On the contrary: we want to reduce taxes for the majority. We will carry out an income tax reform that puts small and medium-sized incomes in a better position, strengthens purchasing power and, in return, makes the top five percent pay more to finance important public tasks. We will reintroduce a wealth tax and use global minimum taxation to ensure that digital companies such as Amazon and Google also pay taxes in future and thus contribute to the common good.
Topic 3: Climate policy
The Climate Protection Act is still inadequate. It lacks sufficient measures to achieve climate neutrality. Recently, the Citizens' Climate Council (buergerrat-klima.de) presented recommendations on climate policy. Which of these recommendations will you translate into concrete political measures?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
We Greens will take the results of the Citizens’ Dialogue seriously and want to translate their recommendations into political action. A comparison of the results of the Citizens’ Climate Council with the Green election manifesto shows that there is a great deal of agreement between the citizens’ climate policy demands and our substantive positions. We see this as a great confirmation and tailwind for our policy: ambitious and social climate protection that is based on the Paris Agreement. We are committed to ensuring that all parliamentary groups in the German Bundestag consider the results of the Climate Citizens’ Assembly and issue a statement on them. As the Green parliamentary group in the Bundestag, we want to set an example here. We have already invited the Citizens’ Assembly to exchange views in parliamentary group committees and have commented extensively and positively on the Citizens’ Assembly’s recommendations.
Response from CDU/CSU
For the CDU and CSU, the Paris climate targets are the basis for our international responsibility as an industrialized country. To achieve them, we need innovative technologies, economic investment and coordinated action from politics, industry and society. The Climate Protection Act launched by the CDU/CSU-led federal government will ensure that Germany is climate-neutral by 2045 and thus make a decisive contribution to meeting the Paris climate targets. The process towards climate neutrality will depend on a smart mix of measures. It is important to take a close look at all contributions to the debate and recommendations. Our goal is to reduce Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions by 65% by 2030 compared to the reference year 1990, in order to then achieve an 88% reduction in 2040 and greenhouse gas neutrality in 2045 along a specifically described path. As an industrialized country, Germany will assume a great deal of responsibility here to achieve CO2 neutrality worldwide by 2050. In certain areas, process emissions can be continuously reduced, but not completely avoided. We will therefore support research, development and pilot projects to ensure that they can be offset by so-called negative emissions in other areas.
Response from DIE LINKE
DIE LINKE fully supports the recommendations of the Climate Citizens’ Assembly in all areas of action. We want to make the economy and society climate-neutral by 2035. However, we are skeptical about the CO2 price. While it may make sense in the energy and industry sectors because it displaces CO2-intensive production, it is highly unsocial in the mobility and heating sectors. This is because consumers often have no alternative, for example if they live in rented accommodation with oil heating or are dependent on their car in an area without well-developed public transport. Regulatory requirements such as phasing out the combustion engine and fossil-fuelled heating systems, high efficiency standards for new buildings and binding renovation plans for old buildings through a nationwide climate check and a tripling of the renovation rate are more suitable in these sectors. We also need massive investment in public infrastructure. We want to expand local public transport and make it free of charge across the board within five years; we want to halve rail fares and promote cycling and walking.
Response from the FDP
When it comes to climate protection, we Free Democrats are building on the consistent implementation of the European greenhouse gas targets on the path to climate neutrality by 2050 with the help of emissions trading that includes all sectors of the economy. The resulting market price for greenhouse gases will provide incentives for innovation and behavior, which will also make a number of the demands of the Climate Citizens’ Assembly a reality more quickly. For example, the CO2 price will lead to a rapid phase-out of coal, faster market penetration of renewable energy sources and more efficient use of energy. On the other hand, we also reject small-scale bans, unnecessary regulations and technology-specific subsidies in climate protection policy.
Response from the SPD
The amended Climate Protection Act sets higher national reduction targets for 2030 (65%) and 2040 (88%) as well as the goal of net greenhouse gas neutrality by 2045. We are now committed to achieving greenhouse gas neutrality as early as possible. To this end, we are massively expanding renewable energies: 100% electricity from renewables by 2040 at the latest. We have decided to phase out nuclear and coal. There is a CO2 price for the transport and heating sectors – we are sticking to the price corridor so as not to overburden anyone financially. By 2030, we will create a climate-friendly mobility system, digitalize the electricity grids, increase energy efficiency, expand storage technologies, hydrogen production and the charging infrastructure and modernize the building stock. We are strengthening the participation of local citizens, tenant electricity and cooperative self-supply as well as municipal participation models. The recommendations of the Citizens’ Climate Council are incorporated into our discussions.
Topic 4: Flight and asylum
Over 60 million people are fleeing hunger, war and political persecution. Will you do more to combat the causes of flight, allow more immigration and implement a Europe-wide asylum policy with quick and correct decisions without the failed Dublin procedure?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
We want to prevent people from fleeing in the first place and having to leave their home involuntarily. That is why we are placing the structural causes of displacement and our responsibility in this regard at the center of our policy. We Greens want to give those seeking protection who arrive in Europe access to a swift and fair asylum procedure. We need a fair system of responsibility sharing that enables a humanitarian and solidarity-based approach to migration and flight and is crisis-proof. We reject the pre-selection of people seeking protection on the basis of protection quotas – as well as closed external border camps. We advocate immigration law that actually promotes immigration and does not make it more complicated. To this end, a points-based talent card should be introduced based on annual labor requirements. We also want to facilitate educational migration through scholarships and educational visas.
Response from CDU/CSU
The CDU and CSU are committed to the fundamental right to asylum and the legal and humanitarian obligations of Germany and Europe. Our policy is characterized by effective order and control of migration. For targeted and controlled immigration into the labor market, we continue to focus on the need for skilled workers in SMEs and industry and take into account qualifications, age, language skills, proof of a concrete job offer and livelihood security. Help for people in need must be separated from this. Here it is important for us to fundamentally reform the Common European Asylum System. We need common standards in European asylum law and a Europe-wide harmonization of reception conditions – in terms of procedures, accommodation and care. We advocate the establishment of European-administered decision centers at the EU’s external borders, where it should be checked whether or not a person is entitled to asylum. In order to combat the causes of flight, the European Union must further intensify cooperation with the main countries of origin.
Response from DIE LINKE
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as many as 82.4 million people were displaced at the end of 2020. Most of them are internally displaced persons; only a few manage to seek protection in Europe or other highly developed countries. Against this backdrop, DIE LINKE is campaigning for an open and humanitarian asylum system in the EU, for safe and legal entry routes for people seeking protection and for a fair division of responsibility within the EU. In the Bundestag, we have made numerous proposals and demands in this regard, including overcoming the failed and often inhumane Dublin system, see, for example, the motions “For an open, human rights-based and solidarity-based asylum policy in the European Union” (Bundestag printed paper 19/577) and “Ensuring fair asylum checks in the European Union – no asylum procedures and camp systems at the external borders” (Bundestag printed paper 19/27831). The number of refugees worldwide can only be reduced by effectively combating the causes of flight. This is a truism that must not remain a mere slogan, but must lead to concrete changes. DIE LINKE wants to ban arms exports, starting with small arms, which cause the most deaths and whose whereabouts are practically impossible to control. This also applies to global economic structures, trade and subsidy policy, arms exports, climate, environmental and development policy. The EU is often partly responsible for the causes of flight, as the effects of exports of subsidized agricultural products and fishing agreements (destruction of regional economies and markets) or the environmentally destructive consequences of expansive capitalist economies worldwide show. A policy of isolation from the consequences of one’s own actions cannot be justified against this background either.
Response from the FDP
We Free Democrats are committed to stepping up the fight against the causes of flight and market-based development cooperation, for example with Africa, the continent of opportunity. We are also committed to ensuring that those seeking protection receive better and more sustainable care in the country to which they first flee. For example, the cut in funding for the UNCHR and the World Food Program was a major trigger for the refugee movement to Europe in 2015.
For us Free Democrats, the fundamental right to asylum for politically persecuted people is inviolable. This also includes political persecution on religious grounds or on the basis of sexual identity. We want to differentiate between politically persecuted persons, war refugees and permanent immigrants. We want to create a separate, unbureaucratic status for refugees fleeing war and civil war – temporary humanitarian protection that is limited to the duration of the war. Once their identity has been established, this status is to be granted in a straightforward manner, thereby massively reducing the burden on the asylum system. As a rule, war refugees should return to their home country once the war is over. For well-integrated asylum seekers, there must also be the possibility of a “change of track” to immigration into the labor market. After all, anyone who is gainfully employed or in a qualification phase (e.g. training or studying) should not be deported.
Humanitarian obligations towards those in need of protection must be fulfilled. As the core of a further development of the Common European Asylum Policy, we demand a binding distribution of those seeking protection among the EU member states, unless they clearly have no prospects of remaining. We want to further develop the Dublin regulations in order to effectively prevent secondary migration. In our view, a fixed, eight-year responsibility of the EU member state to which a person seeking protection has been assigned is required. The transfer back to the responsible EU member state must be simplified. As a rule, those seeking protection should only receive assistance in the responsible EU member state. It must be ensured that this assistance corresponds to a minimum European level in all Member States.
Response from the SPD
The SPD stands for a humanitarian and solidarity-based asylum and refugee policy in the EU. We want to promote a functioning CEAS with the necessary balance between responsibility and solidarity and a reform of the Dublin system towards a solidarity-based distribution mechanism. The right to asylum must be fully safeguarded and granted and the Refugee Convention defended. The asylum system should be further Europeanized and EASO should be expanded into a fully-fledged asylum agency. Open EU asylum centers on EU territory should only be occupied by a limited number of people, procedures should last a maximum of three months in compliance with human rights standards and access to independent asylum procedure and legal advice. As part of a comprehensive approach, legal migration routes should be created and the causes of flight and displacement should be combated. A peace-building foreign policy, economic and security cooperation and emergency humanitarian aid can help to reduce displacement.
Topic 5: Children's rights
Almost 30 years after the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force, the Bundestag has once again failed to include children's rights in the German Basic Law. Will you advocate for children's rights in the Basic Law in a separate paragraph, without a direct link to parental rights?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
Children must be able to develop as freely as possible. They have a right to special protection, support and participation. Children are people with their own needs, which must be recognized and strengthened. We will ensure that the rights and well-being of children are given greater weight in government decisions and are given significant consideration. This is why strong children’s rights in line with the basic principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child must be included in the Basic Law. With a National Action Plan for Child and Youth Participation, we want to ensure that all children and young people are informed about their rights and can participate in an age-appropriate and low-threshold manner, regardless of their socio-cultural background and residence status.
Response from CDU/CSU
The CDU and CSU attach great importance to a well-defined and balanced relationship between children, parents and the state. It is the parents who have the right to raise their children. The state has a supplementary and subordinate function here, which only comes into play in exceptional cases where the parents are unable to raise their children. In the current legislative period, we have tried hard to reach a good agreement on the inclusion of children’s rights in the Basic Law. Unfortunately, this has not been successful. The calculated failure of the negotiations meant that the Greens and SPD squandered an important opportunity: The coalition compromise that had already been negotiated would have ensured that children’s rights would have been visible in the constitution without diminishing the rights of parents. However, the excessive ideas of the Greens in particular, but also of the SPD, were not acceptable to us and would have strengthened the position of the state at the expense of families.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, the Federal Government’s plan to include children’s rights in the Basic Law has failed. The wording chosen by the Federal Government did not include any strengthening of children’s rights and there was even the threat of a relapse behind the status quo. In the coming legislative period, we will continue to campaign for children’s rights to be enshrined in the Basic Law in a separate paragraph. We reject a link to parental rights. For us, it is important that the triad of protection, support and participation is reflected in a formulation in the Basic Law, as is the primary consideration of the best interests of the child.
Response from the FDP
The parliamentary group of the Free Democrats in the German Bundestag has participated constructively in the talks on an amendment to the Basic Law to include children’s rights in the Basic Law and has submitted its own draft bill to the German Bundestag (see “Draft bill to amend the Basic Law – Article 6” BT-Drs. 19/28440). We recognize that in the more than seventy years since the Basic Law came into force, our perspective on children has changed considerably. This development should also be reflected in the Basic Law itself. For us, it is important that the state should never interfere in the family as a silent co-educator by enforcing the “right” upbringing, but should only intervene if the child’s welfare is objectively at risk. A new regulation should focus on children as holders of fundamental rights and not just unilaterally emphasize the state’s duty to protect and support them over and above the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. In addition, the best interests of the child should be given “special” consideration in all state decisions that directly affect them. It is also important to us that children must be heard in proceedings that affect them in accordance with their age and maturity. Finally, the ban on discrimination against “illegitimate children” in Article 6 (5) of the Basic Law should also be adapted in line with the times as part of an amendment to the Basic Law in order to better reflect the diversity of lived family constellations and realities in the Basic Law. For us Free Democrats, it is clear that the relationship between the parents must not have any effect on the status of the child.
Response from the SPD
We will enshrine strong children’s rights to protection, participation and support and the primacy of the best interests of the child in the Basic Law. Parental rights are already sufficiently regulated in the constitution. That is why it is important for us to emphasize the independent rights of children now. We want to organize the required two-thirds majority for constitutional amendments and will therefore include suitable wording for children’s rights in the
Check the Basic Law and find the right place in the Basic Law.
We want strong children’s rights as a guiding principle for our society. The coronavirus pandemic has recently shown how important it would be to have visible children’s rights in the German Basic Law. That is why we also want our most important set of values to clearly stipulate that the needs, interests and wishes of young people are given special consideration in administrations, courts and parliaments.
We are committed to strengthening children’s rights and ensuring that they are respected at all levels.
Topic 6: Reproductive rights
The UN Convention on the Rights of Women has been criticizing the difficult access to safe abortions in Germany for years. Will you, in accordance with the UN guidelines, re-regulate abortions outside of the German Criminal Code and ensure adequate provision of contraception and abortion?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
Self-determined abortion requires the existence of a good counseling and care infrastructure. In our view, this can only be guaranteed in the long term if self-determined abortions are decriminalized and destigmatized. This presupposes that abortion is no longer regulated in the Criminal Code, but outside it. Doctors who perform abortions and provide information about them must be able to do so without the threat of criminal charges. We therefore want to remove §219a StGB from the Criminal Code as quickly as possible. As a first step, the costs of medically prescribed contraceptives must be covered unbureaucratically for recipients of state transfer payments and low-income earners. In the future, free and easy access to contraceptives should apply to everyone. The easiest way would be to regulate this access via the health insurance companies.
Response from CDU/CSU
The CDU and CSU are committed to the Christian view of humanity, the protection of unborn life and humanity towards people in need. Affected women must be able to obtain information without restriction. Abortions are an extreme situation for pregnant women – often in an existential emergency. In such a situation, women need neutral, medically and legally quality-assured advice. Doctors who provide information about abortions must therefore not be criminalized. At the same time, we want to maintain the ban on advertising abortions. With the reform of Section 219a StGB, we have created legal certainty in the interests of women. There are no plans to change this legal situation.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, DIE LINKE is committed to the deletion of sections 218 and 219. Abortions are part of healthcare and must be regulated as such in line with other medical care services. Practical access to abortions must be made easier by removing the obligation to provide counseling and replacing it with an expanded range of counseling services. Clinics must ensure that they can offer abortions. Abortions must be part of gynecological training. Contraceptives are a basic healthcare requirement and must therefore be covered by health insurance for everyone.
Response from the FDP
The performance of abortions is tolerated by the legal system under the conditions of §§ 218a ff. of the German Criminal Code. This compromise is the result of a long social discussion and, in the view of the Free Democrats, its basic structure should not be touched.
If it is clear to the woman concerned that she does not want to have the child, she must also be able to implement this decision within the statutory period. We Free Democrats are therefore committed to comprehensive and safe access. In our view, it is important that doctors have reliable rules on how they are allowed to provide information and that women have access to a comprehensive and objective advice network. To this end, we are calling for the deletion of Section 219a of the German Criminal Code without replacement. In addition, it must be ensured that the performance of abortions plays an appropriate role in medical training. This will also ensure good medical care.
We Free Democrats are committed to quality, efficiency and innovation-enhancing competition among health insurance companies. They should be able to voluntarily offer their policyholders additional services, such as covering the costs of contraceptive methods beyond the age of 22.
Response from the SPD
Women’s right to reproductive and sexual self-determination must be safeguarded. We therefore want to ensure free and easy access to factual medical information on abortion. Particularly in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, information must be available to those affected at an early stage so that they can make self-determined decisions. Pregnancy conflicts are a burden for affected women – we want to prevent additional stress through criminal stigmatization.
The SPD is committed to ensuring that all people can decide on their family planning without discrimination, without paternalism and regardless of their social or economic situation. That is why we will ensure free access to contraceptives, among other things.
Topic 7: End-of-life care and assistance
Three quarters of our population want to be able to end their own lives if necessary, even with the support of others. The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed this emphatically in 2020. Are you prepared to help enforce this right with voluntary medical support and suicide counseling centers?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
We Greens are striving for a legal regulation to concretize the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. As in other parties, there are different positions within the Greens on the specific content and anchoring of the regulations. We are committed to ensuring that the Bundestag regulates access to euthanasia in accordance with the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in a free vote.
Response from CDU/CSU
Following the ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court on the ban on assisted suicide, the CDU and CSU believe it is necessary to draw up new legislation. Otherwise, there would be a high degree of legal uncertainty, which would increase the likelihood of abuse of assisted suicide. It is important to us to develop a comprehensive protection concept that focuses on the dignity of the person, their well-understood self-determination and the protection of life. Criminal law aspects also play a role here: we expressly uphold the ban on killing on demand (Section 216 of the German Criminal Code) and reject the active killing of physically or mentally seriously ill people. In principle, assisted suicide should continue to be punishable by law. The specific legal form of the protection concept will have to be determined in more detail in the course of the parliamentary and societal discussions. It is important to us to conduct a comprehensive and detailed debate in parliament and society.
Response from DIE LINKE
In its ruling of 26.02.2020 (2 BvR 2347/15 and others), the Federal Constitutional Court declared the criminalization of the commercial promotion of suicide (Section 217 StGB) introduced in 2015 to be unconstitutional. It gave the German Bundestag, as legislator, clear scope for action and called for the consistent structuring of medical professional law and narcotics law. Members of the Left Party parliamentary group have subsequently been involved, in some cases in a leading role, in various draft laws on the new regulation of euthanasia. As a party, we have not adopted a uniform position on the ethically sensitive issue of assisted suicide. The discussion on this issue is currently being conducted in an ethics working group with a diverse range of ideologies, which is to advise the party executive. The parliamentary groups in the Bundestag are also unlikely to make any recommendations to their MPs in the relevant votes in future, leaving them to their individual consciences.
Response from the FDP
We Free Democrats are calling for a liberal euthanasia law. It should clearly regulate the conditions under which people may take and provide assistance in suicide. There must also be the possibility of receiving a lethal medication. The prerequisite must be that the wish was made freely and on one’s own responsibility and in full possession of one’s mental faculties. For us, the right to self-determination also applies at the end of life.
Response from the SPD
People need special solidarity at the end of their lives. “Everyone has the right to die with dignity” – as stated in the Hamburg party manifesto. Guided by this principle, Social Democrats campaigned for a law that was passed in the Bundestag. The law criminalized assisted suicide and left room for conscience-based decisions. Assisted suicide was also not prosecuted. A year ago, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the ban on assisted suicide is not compatible with personal rights, which also include the right to a self-determined death. Legislators must now take the ruling into account and regulate assisted suicide.
The controversial point is how to ensure that it is a permanent, self-determined wish to die. For this reason, we are advocating a more comprehensive range of counseling services in the planned law, which must be mandatory in the decision-making phase. We also want to expand the suicide prevention strategy and promote hospice and palliative care services as well as initiatives to combat loneliness and isolation. When the Bundestag votes on assisted suicide, the SPD will not impose any factional discipline. Everyone may decide according to their own conscience.
Topic 8: Respect for a humanistic world view
Religious and ideological communities have equal rights according to the Basic Law. Alongside religious representatives, representatives of a non-religious humanist worldview are given little consideration in political discourse. Will you maintain a dialog with humanist world views?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
We are committed to ensuring that the interests of ideological communities are also given greater consideration. Non-denominational people and humanists are entitled to equal participation. For example, we are committed to ensuring that the broadcasting councils better reflect the diversity of our society today. We Greens want to continue the dialogue with non-religious, humanist organizations and continue to explore opportunities for cooperation.
Response from CDU/CSU
The CDU and CSU are committed to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and belief for all people. We understand this freedom in a positive sense: religions should have a strong voice in the public sphere. This includes regular exchange and dialog with the various religious and ideological communities in this country. The CDU and CSU are in favor of dialogue with all important social groups. As a people’s party, it is important to us not to pursue clientele politics, but to take into account all relevant interest groups and their concerns, as long as they remain within the framework of the Basic Law.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, DIE LINKE fights for the realization of equal rights for all religious and ideological communities in practice. We already maintain a dialog with humanist ideological communities and will continue to do so.
Response from the FDP
As Free Democrats, we maintain an open and constructive dialogue with both religious and humanist organizations. We will continue to do so in the future, because for us Free Democrats, freedom of religion also includes the freedom not to belong to any religion.
Response from the SPD
The churches, religious and ideological communities and secular civil society initiatives are important partners in shaping our social coexistence. Their commitment to a solidary, open and free society is indispensable. We will continue to promote and strengthen interreligious dialog and dialog between and with religions, world views and cultures. With a Democracy Promotion Act, we will support associations, projects and initiatives in the long term and better arm them against the enemies of our open society.
