Vaccination zero number: Scholz rejects another attempt – Lauterbach hope burst

Created: 04/08/2022, 10:11 am

By: Florian Naumann, Cindy Boden

The Bundestag has voted on the corona vaccination obligation.

The regulation desired by Lauterbach and Scholz falls through.

The chancellor refuses to try again.

• Corona * vaccination requirement: Lauterbach, Scholz and Ampel suffer defeat

  (update from April 7th, 12.43 p.m.

  ).

• Chancellor Scholz rejects a renewed attempt to vaccinate 

  (update from April 8, 6.15 a.m.).

• The Union also suffered a setback with its plan (

  update from April 7, 1:01 p.m.

  ).

Update from April 8, 8.30 a.m .:

After the failure of the corona vaccination requirement in the Bundestag, Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach (SPD) wants to start a new vaccination campaign.

"We must once again target a really effective vaccination campaign at those who have not yet been vaccinated but are in principle ready," said Lauterbach on Friday on Deutschlandfunk.

You know that there is such a group, especially people with a migration background.

"They have to be achieved, we mustn't give up.

By the way, we also have to advertise more creatively.

We're preparing something right now."

The Bundestag had voted against compulsory vaccination on Thursday.

Lauterbach therefore no longer sees the possibility of further easing.

"We have now made the loosening that can be done, but we have arrived at the end of the road," he said.

“If we had managed to make vaccination compulsory, there would have been much more room for relaxation in autumn.

Now I see it that the Infection Protection Act will probably have to be amended again early in the fall.”

Vaccination zero number: Scholz rejects another attempt – Lauterbach hope burst

Update from April 8, 6:15 a.m .: 

Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) has rejected a possible new attempt to introduce compulsory corona vaccination.

"There is no legislative majority in the Bundestag for compulsory vaccination," he said on Thursday evening after consultations with the prime ministers in Berlin.

This is now the "starting point for our actions", as much as he regrets it.

He was "of course disappointed that there was no majority today, I don't want to hide that at all," said Scholz.

"I am still convinced that it would be right if we had a vaccination certificate in Germany." With the Bundestag decision, however, a "very clear statement by the legislature" was made.

"We will do everything we can to convince even more citizens of this country to get vaccinated," Scholz announced.

That will “take our creativity up”.

On Thursday, a draft law for mandatory vaccinations from the age of 60 failed in the Bundestag.

He was supported primarily by MPs from the SPD and the Greens, including Scholz himself and Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach (SPD).

After the vote, Lauterbach explained that in order to “avoid unnecessary sacrifices in the fall, the attempt should not be given up to achieve compulsory vaccination by then”.

Scholz obviously sees things differently.

He finds the Bundestag's decision "very clear," said the Chancellor.

"And it wouldn't be very democratic to pretend it was an accident or something."

Vaccination zero number: Bundestag smashes Lauterbach's vaccination requirement clearly - and all other applications

Update from April 7th, 4:12 p.m .:

What’s next for compulsory vaccination?

What does the bitter dispute in the Bundestag on Thursday mean?

You can read an analysis of the “shambles” of compulsory vaccination and the multiple flops of traffic lights in the Bundestag debate at

*.

Update from April 7, 1:45 p.m .:

A turbulent agenda item in the Bundestag has ended – literally without result: All four applications for compulsory vaccination did not receive a majority.

A decision was not made.

For the majority of the traffic light faction and government, the outcome in terms of compulsory vaccination is a defeat.

The draft law for compulsory vaccination from the age of 60, supported by Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD), received the greatest support.

With 296 votes, however, he remained well below the required majority - despite a last-minute compromise with the Ullmann group, which was more cautious in terms of content.

The Union's phased model, on the other hand, did not even receive the nominal 197 votes of the CDU and CSU parliamentarians.

Motions against compulsory vaccination did not reach 100 votes.

A partial explanation for the result could be the voting order: The traffic light groups wanted to put the vaccination requirement at the end of the dance - probably to collect votes for a previously failed Union application.

This idea was hotly debated, Union faction leader Friedrich Merz sensed "manipulation".

Usually, the most far-reaching application is dealt with first in the Bundestag, in this case it was the one for the introduction of compulsory vaccination from the age of 60.

Thorsten Frei, Parliamentary Secretary of the Union, warned that if there were any deviation from the usual procedure, there would be "a flaw" in the decision.

But that didn't happen in the end: Somewhat surprisingly, the deputies voted against putting the vaccination law at the end of the vote - apparently traffic light deputies had also voted against the recommendation of their group leaders.

The dispute over compulsory vaccination will remain in Germany for the time being.

Update from April 7, 1:40 p.m .:

The last application in the Bundestag’s mandatory vaccination debate also failed: The AfD’s proposal received 79 yes and 607 no votes, with abstentions according to the result read by Yvonne Magwas.

Update from April 7, 1:21 p.m .:

There is also no majority in the Bundestag for a general no to compulsory vaccination – the proposal by a group led by FDP politician Wolfgang Kubicki also failed with a bang.

According to Bundestag Vice President Yvonne Magwas (CDU), 85 MPs voted in favor of the plan, 590 against, and 12 abstained.

Vaccination requirement in the Bundestag: Lauterbach is concerned - "Corona control will be much more difficult"

Update from April 7, 1:11 p.m .:

Health Minister Karl Lauterbach is concerned about the failure of the Corona vaccination requirement in the Bundestag: “It is a very important decision, because now the fight against Corona will be much more difficult in the fall.

Political finger pointing doesn't help.

We'll keep going," he tweeted at noon.

There was no lack of blame in the previous debate (

).

Corona vaccination requirement: Karl Lauterbach and Olaf Scholz have to deal with a defeat - the Bundestag smashed the vaccination requirement from the age of 60.

© Michael Kappeler/dpa

The FDP health politician Andrew Ullmann said on the Phoenix broadcaster that a compromise had been reached.

It was about not standing there empty-handed, the thread of the conversation shouldn't break now.

At least one obligation to advise must be enforced.

Ullmann and fellow campaigners had originally advertised a cautious vaccination model*, but had recently made a compromise with a larger traffic light group.

Update from April 7, 1:01 p.m .:

The

: 172 MPs voted in favor, 492 against, 9 abstained.

The CDU and CSU actually have 197 seats in parliament.

Bundestag Vice President Aydan Özoguz (SPD) warns of "discipline": The number of voters has fallen significantly.

Mandatory vaccination vote: Bundestag smashes Lauterbach's request - surprisingly clearly

Update from April 7, 12:43 p.m .:

The

: Only 296 MPs voted for the draft endorsed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD), 378 against .

There are also 9 abstentions.

When the vote was announced by Bundestag Vice President Aydan Özuguz (SPD), there was sometimes loud cheering from the plenum.

The plan has been scrapped.

Next, the Bundestag votes on the Union's proposal: A phased model for a possible introduction of compulsory vaccination in the fall, including a vaccination register.

It is the only remaining proposal towards mandatory vaccination in the current session.

Afterwards there are still applications against compulsory vaccination from FDP politician Wolfgang Kubicki on the one hand and the AfD on the other.

Update from April 7, 12:36 p.m .:

The parliamentarians’ vote against the traffic light group leaders’ desire to act definitely seems to be a defeat for the planners: not all MPs went to the polls – but the 345 votes for the opposition’s desire to Procedure that several traffic light politicians have voted against the line of their factions.

The opposition has a total of 320 mandates in the Bundestag.

Vaccination obligation in the Bundestag: a bang in the preliminary vote – the opposition prevails against traffic lights

Update from April 7, 12:24 p.m .:

The

is available, it comes as a surprise: The

– 345 MPs voted for a conventional approach: The first vote should be on the most far-reaching proposal, general vaccination from 60 years.

339 parliamentarians voted for the traffic light plan to deal with the law on vaccination last.

This could further reduce the chances of an immediate vaccination requirement from the age of 60.

One hope of the supporters was to be able to receive votes from the Union at the end of the entire voting round.

CDU, CSU, AfD and Linke had sharply criticized the request (

).

Vaccination debate in the Bundestag: Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the ballot box.

© Kay Nietfeld/dpa

Update from April 7, 12:12 p.m .:

Parallel to the debate in the Bundestag about a possible vaccination requirement in Germany, several hundred opponents of vaccination demonstrated at the Brandenburg Gate.

They protested against the Corona laws.

The title of the demonstration was: "For free vaccination decisions and self-determination over one's own body." Posters read: "No to compulsory vaccination" and "My health".

About 350 people attended around 11 a.m., police said.

500 participants were registered.

The police were on site with 130 emergency services, including dog handlers and the water police on the Spree.

The demonstration initially went smoothly.

Update from April 7, 12 p.m.:

The first vote on compulsory corona vaccination is taking place in the Bundestag: MPs are now voting on the order in which the proposals should be voted on.

Ten minutes are scheduled.

AfD and Linke had recently reprimanded the traffic light factions' request not (as usual) to coordinate the ideas according to the degree of their intervention in the current legal situation.

"Just because you don't have a majority as a traffic light, my group isn't willing to do without logic and clean parliamentary work," explained Left Parliament Secretary Jan Korte.

The AfD also expressed clear criticism of a decision by Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD): He ordered Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock from a NATO meeting on Ukraine to vote on compulsory vaccination * to Berlin.

AfD politician Martin Sichert complained that this was "exposing".

Bundestag argues about compulsory vaccination - and the procedure: "manipulation" or "shabby" allegations?

Update from April 7th, 11:35 a.m .:

“If you point your finger at others, four fingers always point back,” replies SPD colleague Katja Mast.

"What you are performing here is a big hoopla," she reprimands Frei und die Union.

Mast suggests voting the motions based on the number of signatures - or based on what creates the greatest clarity for citizens.

The SPD politician claims that the citizens wanted the vaccination requirement to be coordinated last.

This is possible according to the rules of procedure of the Bundestag.

The Greens are also attacking the Union: Merz wants to "by all means prevent" his MPs from making a free decision of conscience, says their parliamentary director Irene Mihalic.

FDP colleague Johannes Vogel also accuses Frei of damaging confidence in the Bundestag.

The following applies to group applications: If there is no agreement on the order, then a vote is taken.

Every exit is legitimate.

"Shabby" is, however, that the Union raises allegations because they hope to gain advantages if their application is voted on last.

Update from April 7, 11:28 a.m .:

In fact, it is now about the order of voting on the individual applications.

It may become relevant when supporters of failed proposals join other proposals as a substitute.

Bundestag Vice President Aydan Özoguz (SPD) must now moderate conflicting requests for action.

An agreement in the Council of Elders had failed in advance.

"For decades" the Bundestag has been voting on the most far-reaching proposal, says Union Parliamentary Secretary Thorsten Frei (CDU).

Now that should suddenly be different.

“No one in the country” takes away from the advocates of immediate vaccination from the age of 60 that this is not the most far-reaching application.

Political culture is sacrificed out of “cheap power-political calculations”.

There will be "a blemish attached" if this approach is ultimately successful.

Vaccination obligation in the Bundestag: Zoff follows the exchange of blows about the procedure – Merz senses “manipulation”

Update from April 7th, 11:25 a.m .:

After almost an hour and a half of sometimes heated debate, the Bundestag debate on the corona vaccination requirement ends – with further allegations between the SPD and the Union.

SPD parliamentary group leader Dirk Wiese accuses the Union that the communication channels have been tight since the weekend (and a tweet by Friedrich Merz).

Merz speaks up again personally in a short intervention.

"Many speakers here have criticized us very harshly for our personal opinion," he says.

The fact that the SPD is working on the Union in this way is due to the fact that the government has “not agreed at all” to compulsory vaccination.

In his opinion, the obligation to vaccinate is not a decision of conscience.

"If you're serious, don't tamper with the voting order," he railed.

Corona vaccination requirement in the Bundestag: Friedrich Merz ends the debate with allegations against traffic light groups.

© Michael Kappeler/dpa

Update from April 7, 10:52 a.m .:

SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich and CDU MP Sepp Müller are again in the clinch.

Both sides accuse each other of having prevented compromises in the Bundestag.

Communication between the federal government and the prime minister is also “not working at all”, adds Müller.

"The icing on the cake" was Lauterbach's recent withdrawal of the isolation decision.

"Communication disaster, this traffic light coalition is finished in Corona policy!" he shouts.

Vaccination dispute in the Bundestag: Wagenknecht calls Lauterbach "headless"

Update from April 7th, 10.40 a.m .:

With Sahra Wagenknecht (left), the next prominent vaccination opponent* is now speaking.

Germany claims to be a “wrong-way driver”, while abroad nobody is talking about mandatory vaccinations anymore, she reproaches.

Vaccination does not protect against infection, but there are also reports of side effects.

"Nevertheless, you are undeterred in forcing compulsory vaccination on people?

Because the chancellor has to demonstrate assertiveness?

Because a headless Minister of Health, who has long since made himself impossible through his erratic actions, apparently wants to save face and the ability to act, at least on this point?” she asks provocatively.

Vaccination must remain a personal decision.

Vaccination dispute in the Bundestag: violent exchange of blows, Union in the crossfire - "physical pain"

Update from April 7, 10:30 a.m .:

The Left Group also made accusations against the Union: In the past, the Bundestag had had good experiences with group applications instead of strict group discipline on sensitive issues, says MP Kathrin Vogler.

In the Union, however, there are instructions not to agree to other applications - even if your own proposal fails.

"We will vote freely today, each and everyone according to their conscience, it must cause them physical pain that the Left Group is freer than the Union Group can ever be," she calls out.

The CSU MP Erich Irlstorfer coolly states that Long-Covid * is causing him physical pain, not some parliamentary procedure.

The Union is the only group that has even agreed on its own proposal.

Update from April 7th, 10:16 a.m .:

A Green also speaks out against compulsory vaccination: His experience as a “friend and relative in this pandemic who fought for the vaccination of every single person” is that you “take the pressure off” must, says MP Max Lucks.

Normative pressure is counterproductive.

Group colleague Paula Piechotta, on the other hand, attacks the Union: "The differences between your application and our draft law are so small that they do not allow non-approval".

"They have to fluff up these minimal differences like cliffs they can pull themselves up on!" Piechotta exclaims, visibly emotional.

CDU leader Friedrich Merz is asking MPs not to cooperate.

"Time is running out," says Green.

Lauterbach attacks unvaccinated people in the Bundestag: "Then we would now have a flawless catastrophe"

Update from April 7, 10:08 a.m.:

Karl Lauterbach takes the podium.

However, the minister speaks in his role as a simple MP.

Omikron is therefore a "milder variant, because many people are already vaccinated".

If fewer people had been vaccinated, “then we would now have a flawless catastrophe and would be in complete lockdown, you have to understand that!” he exclaims.

Lauterbach reproaches the opponents of compulsory vaccination, specifically Wolfgang Kubicki, that so far no more dangerous variant has been predicted by experts.

"Do we as a society want to get used to the fact that 200, 300 people die every day?" asks Lauterbach.

"Today we need your government support so that we will be in a different position in the autumn than we are now," the minister called out to the Union.

Compulsory vaccinations from the age of 60 prevent 90 percent of avoidable deaths.

"The country shouldn't get used to the fact that 200 to 300 people die every day": Karl Lauterbach.

© Kay Nietfeld/dpa

Update from April 7, 10:05 a.m .:

The debate continues with great sharpness: AfD MP Martin Sichert again rejects compulsory vaccination as a “medical experiment”.

For his speech, he received two reprimands from Bundestag President Bärbel Bas: Sichert made two personal attacks on MPs, explains Bas: Green MP Emilia Fester - who had given a much-noticed anger speech in the Bundestag about compulsory vaccination - described Sichert as "Bundestag -chick”, also Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) as a “liar”.

"It's an attack on the person," Bas clarifies.

Update from April 7th, 9.52 a.m .:

In the meantime, each application group has spoken once – the debate is now partly sliding into personal reproaches.

MP Nina Warken accuses Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach (SPD)* of an unclear lurching course, the compromise on compulsory vaccination for 60 years cannot be explained with substantive arguments.

Lauterbach would have better campaigned for an agreement instead of "sitting with Markus Lanz until late at night" *, she scoffs.

SPD politician Martin Rosemann accuses the Union's application of a lack of "precautions" in an interim question.

"When the hospitals are already full, then it starts, then the citizens have to go through three vaccinations," he reprimands the Union plans for a vaccination decision only in the fall.

Warkens counter: It is also unclear whether compulsory vaccination from the age of 60 could “do something” in the current wave.

At the same time, it doesn't help if a "disproportionate" law is "cash" by the Federal Constitutional Law.

The Green health expert Janosch Dahmen is also concerned with the Union: "Democracy does not consist of throwing an ineffective, half-finished application into the room, locking the door and not answering the phone anymore," he exclaims.

It is necessary to make a compromise.

The CDU and CSU "couldn't have managed that in four months".

Vaccination obligation in the Bundestag: Kubicki and Weidel against the obligation - Ullmann promotes a "painful compromise"

Update from April 7, 9:36 a.m .:

The peculiarities of the debate become apparent: Immediately after Kubicki, Andrew Ullmann speaks to an FDP parliamentary group colleague.

However, he does demand compulsory vaccination - his parliamentary group has agreed with other traffic light deputies on compulsory vaccination from the age of 60 and educational measures for everyone.

“We cannot seriously make a prediction of what a wave will look like in winter”, but it is clear that it will come, says Ullmann.

His group remained the smallest, he says - which is why a compromise was found that was "partly painful".

Also because you don't want to be empty-handed when it comes to compulsory vaccination.

Update from April 7, 9:32 a.m .:

Wolfgang Kubicki also argues against compulsory vaccination – but initially distances himself from Weidel’s speech.

“It is not the fault of the unvaccinated that others become infected, we do not have an overload of the health system and will probably not get one either,” argues Kubicki nonetheless;

a more dangerous variant is not the most likely scenario.

Vaccination is for self-protection and not for the protection of others.

"It is not the job of the state to force adults to protect themselves."

Update from April 7, 9:24 a.m .:

For the AfD, parliamentary group leader Alice Weidel argues against any vaccination requirement.

"The purpose of the Basic Law is to guarantee the civil liberties, among these important rights the right to life and physical integrity stands out," she says - the government wants to "bend this right at will".

The obligation to vaccinate is a “totalitarian presumption,” says Weidel.

Mandatory vaccination vote in the Bundestag: CDU resorts to marriage comparison

Update from April 7, 9:17 a.m .:

Health expert Tino Sorge speaks for the Union – which wants to compete with its own proposal.

“One cannot decide immediately and in general when it comes to the question 'mandatory vaccination yes or no'.

It's like asking, 'Are you pro-marriage yes or no?'

All you can say is, 'It depends'”, Sorge uses a somewhat idiosyncratic comparison:

"The right woman has to be there, the time has to be right and the circumstances have to be right." "At the moment" there are falling incidences and no overload in the health system, says Sorge.

At the same time, given the possible variants, it is unclear whether the vaccines will work in the fall.

In addition, preparation is necessary for compulsory vaccination: in the form of a vaccination register, but also the necessary vaccination infrastructure.

Video: The whole Bundestag debate for close listening

Video recording provided by br24.de

Vaccination dispute in the Bundestag: battle of words between AfD and SPD

Update from April 7, 9:11 a.m .:

Immediately after Schmidt, the AfD took the floor for a short intervention: MP Thomas Ehrhorn reported that he had recently suffered a corona infection as a person who had been vaccinated twice - and got away with two days of fever.

His conclusion: Vaccination does not protect against infection, there is a risk of a spiral of constant vaccinations with possibly unclear side effects.

There is audible displeasure in the plenary.

„Ich sehe, es geht Ihnen gut, das freut mich“, erwidert Schmidt. Zugleich habe sie gute Nachrichten: Mit zwei Impfungen und einer Genesung erfülle Ehrhorn die Impfpflicht bereits, sagt die SPD-Politikerin unter Applaus und vereinzeltem Johlen. Die Impfpflicht schütze nicht vor Infektion - aber vor schweren Erkrankungen, dem Tod und der Notwendigkeit harter Schutz-Maßnahmen.

Impfpflicht-Debatte im Bundestag läuft: SPD wirbt für Kompromiss ab 60 Jahren

Update vom 7. April, 9.08 Uhr: Als Erste hat SPD-Fraktionsvize Dagmar Schmidt das Wort - sie spricht für die große Ampel-Gruppe, die lange für eine Impfpflicht ab 18 geworben hatte. Mittlerweile haben diese Abgeordneten einen Kompromiss mit der „Gruppe Ullmann“ geschlossen, die die Option auf eine Impfpflicht ab 50 und eine Impfberatungspflicht ins Feld geführt hatte.

„Mit einer Impfpflicht für die Über-60-Jährigen schützen wir das Gesundheitssystem und schließen die Impflücke vor allem bei der besonders vulnerablen Gruppe“, erläutert sie. Zugleich gebe man Beratung und Aufklärung mit einer Beratungspflicht für alle ab 18 Jahren Raum.

Update vom 7. April, 9.02 Uhr: Die Impfpflicht-Debatte im Bundestag läuft - bis zum Votum der Abgeordneten wird es allerdings noch etwas dauern: Eine 70-minütige Aussprache ist angesetzt. Im Anschluss wird zunächst die Reihenfolge der Abstimmung festgelegt, darüber gebe es bislang keine Einigkeit, sagt Bundestagspräsidentin Bärbel Bas (SPD). Bas stimmt auf ein umfangreiches Prozedere zu sein: Insgesamt könne die Abstimmung und die Einigung über den Ablauf zweieinhalb Stunden benötigen.

Impfpflicht CDU prophezeit Scheitern - SPD debattiert schon über Niederlage-Folge

Update vom 7. April, 8.55 Uhr: In wenigen Minuten beginnt nach Monaten des Verhandelns und Debattierens jene Bundestags-Sitzung, in der eine Entscheidung über die Corona-Impfpflicht fallen soll. Nach wie vor scheinen die Mehrheitsverhältnisse unklar. Eine Schlüsselrolle könnte die Reihenfolge der Abstimmung spielen:

Möglich ist, dass der zuletzt abgestimmte Vorschlag größere Chancen hat, Stimmen zuvor abgelehnter Impfpflicht-Anträge auf sich vereint. Die Befürworter einer sofortigen Impfpflicht ab 60 Jahren - einst zu großen Teilen die Antragsteller für eine Pflicht ab 18 Jahren - könnten deshalb ihren Antrag an das Ende schieben wollen, wie unter anderem die Süddeutsche Zeitung berichtet. Üblicherweise wird der weitreichendste Antrag zuerst behandelt.

Nach Einschätzung von CDU-Generalsekretär Mario Czaja wird das Parlament an diesem Donnerstag keine Impfpflicht beschließen. „Bislang sehe ich für keinen Antrag im Parlament eine Mehrheit“, sagte Czaja der dpa. Er hält das jedoch für kein Problem. Die verfügbaren Impfstoffe böten keinen zuverlässigen Drittschutz und verhinderten unter Omikron auch keine Infektion. Es sei wichtig, dass Menschen sich impfen ließen, um vor schweren Verläufen geschützt zu sein. „Eine Impfpflicht erscheint aber unter diesen Bedingungen nicht verhältnismäßig. Deswegen muss eine solche auch jetzt nicht beschlossen werden.“

Die SPD stützt unterdessen bereits Minister Karl Lauterbach für den Fall eines Scheiterns seiner Pläne. SPD-Fraktionsvize Dagmar Schmidt sicherte ihm auch im Falle einer Niederlage Unterstützung zu. „Wenn in einem Gruppenverfahren der Antrag, den man unterstützt, am Ende keine Mehrheit finden sollte - wovon ich immer noch nicht hoffe, dass es so sein wird - dann ist das viel, aber kein Grund irgendwie seinen Hut zu nehmen“, sagte Schmidt am Donnerstag im Deutschlandfunk unmittelbar vor der Abstimmung im Bundestag. In einer Demokratie sei eine Niederlage nicht schlimm.

Update vom 7. April, 6.23 Uhr: Nach monatelangem Ringen fällt der Bundestag am heutigen Donnerstag (9 Uhr) die Entscheidung über die Einführung einer allgemeinen Corona-Impfpflicht in Deutschland. Vor der mit Spannung erwarteten Abstimmung zeichneten sich zunächst keine klaren Mehrheitsverhältnisse ab. Als einziger ausgearbeiteter Gesetzentwurf liegt ein Kompromissvorschlag für eine Impfpflicht zunächst für Menschen ab 60 Jahren vor. Darauf hatten sich zwei Gruppen von Abgeordneten aus SPD, FDP und Grünen* verständigt. Zwei Anträge wenden sich gegen eine Impfpflicht, die Union fordert in einem Antrag zuerst den Aufbau eines Impfregisters.

Kommt die allgemeine Impfpflicht? Bundestag stimmt ab - Ausgang unklar

Seit Beginn der Pandemie war eine allgemeine Impfpflicht lange über Parteigrenzen hinweg ausgeschlossen worden. Angesichts schleppender Impfungen sprachen sich Ende vergangenen Jahres Kanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) und die Ministerpräsidenten dann doch dafür aus. Wenn der Bundestag die Impfpflicht beschließt, müsste der Bundesrat zustimmen. Aktuell haben mindestens 63,2 Millionen Menschen oder 76 Prozent aller Einwohner den Grundschutz mit der nötigen zweiten Spritze. Die Impf-Kampagne ist aber nahezu zum Erliegen gekommen.

Bundesgesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) sagte am Mittwochabend in der ARD, er glaube, dass der Kompromissvorschlag aus den Ampel-Fraktionen eine Mehrheit bekomme. Sollte die von ihm unterstützte Impfpflicht scheitern, denke er aber „natürlich nicht“ über einen Rücktritt nach.

Impfpflicht für alle nicht mehr realistisch - Kompromiss als Gegenvorschlag

Scholz hatte sich zunächst für eine Impfpflicht für alle Erwachsenen stark gemacht. Eine so große Lösung ist aber nicht mehr realistisch. Um doch noch ein mehrheitsfähiges Modell zu erreichen, weichten die Befürworter einer Impfpflicht ab 18 ihren Vorschlag auf und einigten sich mit einer Abgeordnetengruppe, die für eine mögliche Impfpflicht ab 50 eintrat, auf eine gemeinsame Initiative.

• Zentrale Punkte des Entwurfs:
• Pflichten: Für alle ab 60 Jahre soll eine Pflicht kommen, bis zum 15. Oktober über einen Impf- oder Genesenennachweis zu verfügen. Für alle von 18 bis 59 Jahre, die nicht geimpft sind, kommt zunächst eine Beratungspflicht - sie müssen bis dahin „eine individuelle ärztliche Beratung“ nachweisen. Über die Pflichten, Beratungs- und Impfangebote sollen die Krankenkassen bis 15. Mai die Bürger informieren.
• Ausnahmen: Von den Pflichten ausgenommen sind Menschen, die sich aus medizinischen Gründen nicht impfen lassen können, und Frauen im ersten Schwangerschaftsdrittel.
• Kontrollen: Die Nachweise muss man Behörden ab 15. Oktober zusammen mit einem Lichtbildausweis vorlegen können. Zum Durchsetzen sollen im Notfall nur Zwangsgelder zulässig sein, keine Ersatzhaft. Unabhängig von Kontrollen müssen Nachweise bis 15. Oktober der Krankenkasse vorgelegt werden, die Kassen sollen dies zum 1. September anfordern.
• Zusätzliche Stufen: Der Bundestag soll im Licht des aktuellen Infektionsgeschehens beschließen können, dass die Nachweispflicht noch ausgesetzt wird. Ab dem 1. September kann das Parlament zudem beschließen, dass die Impfpflicht auch für 18- bis 59-Jährige kommt. Die gesamten Regelungen sollen bis 31. Dezember 2023 gelten.
• Register: Bis Ende 2023 soll ein Register eingerichtet werden, das erhaltene Impfungen gegen bestimmte übertragbare Krankheiten oder eine vorliegende Immunität erfasst.

Entscheiden muss der Bundestag voraussichtlich zuerst noch über die Reihenfolge bei der Abstimmung. SPD und FDP hatten signalisiert, dass zuerst über die Anträge entschieden werden soll und zum Schluss über den Entwurf für die Impfpflicht. Dies könnte die Chancen erhöhen, dass manche Abgeordnete letztlich für ihn stimmen, nachdem eigentlich bevorzugte Initiativen zuvor keine Mehrheit bekommen haben.

Impfpflicht-Krimi heute im Bundestag: Lauterbach meldet sich vorab in ARD

Vorbericht vom 6. April: Berlin - Viele Monate wird nun schon über die Corona-Impfpflicht in Deutschland gestritten. Am Donnerstag (7. April) soll der Bundestag seine Entscheidung treffen. Ab 9 Uhr läuft die Debatte im deutschen Parlament. Nach einer etwa 70-minütigen Debatte wird es voraussichtlich mehrere namentliche Abstimmungen unter den Abgeordneten geben.

Bis zuletzt ist unklar, ob am Ende ein Vorschlag für oder gegen die Impfpflicht eine Mehrheit erringen wird. Bundesgesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) rechnet aber mit einem Votum für den jüngsten Kompromissvorschlag zur Impfpflicht. „Ich gehe davon aus, dass wir die Impfpflicht morgen beschließen werden“, sagte Lauterbach am Mittwoch. Der am Dienstag zwischen zwei Abgeordnetengruppen ausgehandelte Kompromiss sei „ein guter Vorschlag“.

Corona-Impfpflicht: Lauterbach rechnet mit Mehrheit für Vorschlag ab 60

Der neu gefasste Antrag sieht vor, sofort eine Impfpflicht ab 60 zu beschließen, die ab dem 1. Oktober greifen soll. Zu dieser Altersgruppe gehörten 90 Prozent derjenigen, die an oder mit Corona sterben, betonte der Gesundheitsminister. Er verwies zudem darauf, dass auch eine Impfpflicht ab 18 beschlossen werden könne, wenn sich die Situation bei den Menschen zwischen 18 und 59 nicht wesentlich verbessert habe. Für den neuen Vorschlag haben sich die bisherigen Befürworter einer Impfpflicht ab 18 Jahren mit jenen zusammengetan, die eine mögliche Impfpflicht ab 50 mit vorgelagerter Pflichtberatung vorgeschlagen hatte. Das ist nun also eine große Gruppen, doch reicht es am Ende?

Die Union hält jedenfalls weiter an ihrem Vorschlag einer gestuften Impfpflicht mit Impfregister fest. Bei dem neuen Vorschlag handele sich um „verkorkste Kompromisse, die die Koalition machen muss, weil sie sich untereinander nicht einig ist“, so Unionsfraktionschef Friedrich Merz (CDU*) am Mittwochmorgen im Deutschlandfunk. Den von seiner Fraktion vorgelegten Antrag „halten wir nach wie vor für den richtigen“, betonte er. Zwei weitere Anträge, die am Donnerstag im Bundestag eine Rolle spielen, sehen zudem den kompletten Verzicht auf eine Impfpflicht vor.

Corona-Impfpflicht: Union ermahnt Abgeordnete zu Disziplin

Vor der Abstimmung ermahnt die Führung der Unionsfraktion offenbar ihre Abgeordneten noch zur Disziplin. „Nehmen Sie an allen Abstimmungen teil, stimmen Sie unserem Antrag zu, lehnen Sie die übrigen Vorlagen ab“, heißt es in einem Schreiben des Parlamentsgeschäftsführers Thorsten Frei (CDU) an seine Fraktionskollegen, der am Mittwoch der Nachrichtenagentur AFP vorlag. „Falls unser Antrag keine Mehrheit findet, sollte dem Impuls widerstanden werden, anderen Vorlagen zuzustimmen, nur damit es irgendein Ergebnis gibt“, heißt es in dem Schreiben weiter. Zuerst hatte das Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland darüber berichtet.

Corona-Impfpflicht: Abstimmung im Bundestag - Ausgang offen

Bei der Abstimmung reicht eine einfache Mehrheit. Es müssen also nicht mindestens 369 aller 736 Abgeordneten dafür stimmen, sondern es wäre genug, wenn von den anwesenden Parlamentariern mehr mit Ja als mit Nein stimmen.

It may also depend on the order in which the votes are cast.

Because tactics will play a certain role in the vote.

If the vaccination draft were to come first and did not get a majority, some of its supporters could theoretically vote in the Union, for example, before there was no regulation at all.

Conversely, it could be similar: If all other proposals were rejected and the vaccination proposal only came at the end, other MPs could theoretically join in order to come to a conclusion at all.

However, it is also possible that no proposal will get a majority.

The Federal Council would also have to agree to the introduction of compulsory vaccination.