At first, the presiding judge Guido Jansen looks at confused faces: Is Joachim Volz allowed to perform abortions at the Lippstadt Clinic or not? They want to ban the clinic – and Volz sued against it, on Thursday in the second instance before the state labor court in Hamm.
The answer to the question is a bit complex. Because Jansen confirmed the corresponding instructions to the employed women’s clinic chief physician Volz. However, the court declared the instructions to the statutory health insurance doctor Joachim Volz, who works as an outpatient in his own practice in Bielefeld as well as at the clinic, invalid.
Volz has headed the perinatal center at the Lippstadt Clinic for 13 years. There he also carries out medically indicated abortions. Those that, according to the law, are “medically indicated” “to avert a danger to the life of the pregnant woman or the risk of serious impairment of the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman”. Unlike abortions in the event of unwanted pregnancies, these are expressly not illegal in Germany.
But the previously Protestant clinic was given a Catholic sponsor in December 2024 and Volz was instructed at the beginning of 2025 not to carry out any more abortions – except in cases of “danger to life and limb”. The clinic referred to the special rights of the churches in labor law and the ethical criteria agreed in the new social contract. The Hamm Labor Court rejected his claim in the first instance and argued that the employer could make such requirements.
A woman who has had a miscarriage has to be admitted to the hospital, there is no other way.
Joachim Volz
The state labor court now also agreed with this. This allows entrepreneurial freedom, regardless of special church rights, said the judge. However, he complained that the instructions to Volz did not provide for any exceptions for his outpatient secondary activities, even if his life was in danger – and therefore went further than the restrictions at the hospital “without a good reason”.
“For us, this means that from tomorrow onwards patients can come to us again as usual and we will help them, without any ifs or buts,” says Volz. Because he is already making the diagnoses in his outpatient work, and the initiation is also taking place there. “And a woman who has had a miscarriage has to be admitted to the hospital, there is no other way,” says Volz.
However, according to Volz, it is of course conceivable that his employer will now send him new instructions – which are worded identical to the hospital’s requirements confirmed by the court regarding his outpatient secondary activity.
Over 500 people demonstrate in Hamm
Two hours beforehand, a biting wind blows across the market square in Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia. “I am a doctor and not a murderer,” Volz says into the microphone while standing on a stage. “My medical assistance cannot be a sin.” The crowd applauds. “A women’s clinic is not a house of prayer, a uterus is not a public space and a doctor is not a priest,” shouts Volz. “We are proud of Professor Volz,” the crowd shouts back, again and again. Around 550 people braved the freezing temperatures to show their support.
Kristina Hänel has come, the doctor whose case brought down paragraph 219a. The law prohibited doctors from publicly informing that they perform abortions. It makes her angry that those “who talk about charity are putting the health and lives of women at risk with their hatred and indifference,” she told the taz, referring to the Catholic Church.
The SPD state parliament member Lisa Kapteinat is also there, as is the women’s policy spokeswoman for the Left in the Bundestag, Kathi Gebel. In addition to women’s policy spokeswoman Ulle Schauws, the Green Party’s parliamentary group leader Britta Haßelmann and former party leader Ricarda Lang also arrived. Together, the crowd escorts Volz to court. A handful of abortion opponents are waiting there with posters. “I am not a pile of cells,” it says.
In the courtroom, Joachim Volz vividly explains what the technical term “medically indicated abortion” means. “It’s about non-viable children,” says the doctor. Forcing the pregnant woman to continue to carry her to term could mean her death. “How can medical laypeople determine when this exceptional situation occurs?” This is a medical decision that must be made in consultation with the woman and with respect for her autonomy.
When Volz retires at some point, the situation in Lippstadt will look different again
The exception “when there is danger to life and limb” doesn’t help either, says Volz: “Today we no longer let women step to the threshold of death in order to then save them, that’s nonsense.” He and his lawyer point to Poland, where women died because doctors refused to give them abortions for too long. “Who was convicted? The doctors, not the church,” says Volz’s lawyer Tim Müller-Heidelberg. And emphasizes: Not carrying out a medically necessary abortion could at least constitute negligent bodily harm or even death.
So it’s a partial success for Volz, and especially for his patients. But, as the judge expressly emphasizes, it is also a case-by-case decision. The decision has no impact on hospitals in the rest of the country. And when he retires at some point, the situation in Lippstadt will look different again.
The doctor appeared before the press after the trial with correspondingly mixed feelings. “This fight is not over yet,” he says. However, the court did not allow an appeal and this is probably the end for him at this point. “Now it’s politics’ turn,” says Volz.
