Scholars Crossing Faculty Publications and Presentations Liberty University School of Law 1-1-2011 Nuremberg and the Crime of Abortion Jeffrey C. Tuomala Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation 42 U. Toledo. L. Rev. 283 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberty University School of Law at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES NUREMBERG AND THE CRIME OF ABORTION Jeffrey C. Tuomala* ABSTRACT HE crime of abortion played prominently in two international trials held Tat Nuremberg following World War li-the Goering and Greifelt cases. Allied prosecutors made the case that voluntary and involuntary abortion were war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Goering judgment identified the Political Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party as a criminal organization, in part because of its policies promoting abortion. The Greifelt indictment charged ten defendants with voluntary and involuntary abortion. The prosecution's case focused in part on the Nazis' removal of the protection of law from unborn children in occupied Poland and unborn children of Eastern workers in Germany that the Nazis considered racially non-valuable. The prosecution argued that voluntary abortion was punishable because it was a crime against the unborn child. The prosecution proceeded on the theory that Germany had a duty to afford protection of law to unborn children and that the deliberate failure of high-level officials to do so constituted crimes against humanity and genocide by acts of omission. After summarizing evidence of voluntary abortion policies in its judgment, the Greifelt tribunal found two defendants guilty and one not guilty of forcible abortion and seven not guilty simply of abortion. The Nuremberg tribunals generally limited their jurisdiction over crimes against humanity to offenses committed during wartime. The post-WWII doctrine that high-level government officials are liable for massive human rights violations committed against their own citizens in peacetime has become widely accepted and has major implications for international criminal law. * Jeffrey C. Tuomala, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law; Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (Ret.). The author is indebted to Michael Parkinson for his initial research, insights, and encouragement to bring this article to completion. 283 284 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... 283 TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 284 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 286 I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE NUREMBERG TRIALS ...................................... 289 A. The Moscow Declaration ................................................................ 290 B. The London Agreement and Charter ............................................... 291 C .. The Berlin Declaration and Control Council Law 10 ..................... 292 I. Control Council Law I 0 Enacted by an International Governing Body ........................................................................ 293 2. The Nuremberg Military Tribunals' Self-identification ............ 294 3. The U.S. Supreme Court's Treatment of the NMTs .................. 296 II. NAZI RACE THEORY AND GERMANIZATION ................................................. 299 A. Nazi Race Theory ............................................................................ 300 I. Race or Blood ............................................................................ 300 2. Lebensraum or Soil... ................................................................. 302 B. The Germanization Plan .................................................................. 303 Ill. ABORTIONANDTHEIMT ............................................................................. 306 A. The Indictment in Goering .............................................................. 306 I. The Counts ................................................................................ 307 2. Defenses .................................................................................... 310 3. Particular Allegations with Regard to the Counts ..................... 312 4. Sources of International Law ..................................................... 314 B. The Evidence of Abortion Crimes Produced at Trial... ................... 316 I. Forced Abortion ........................................................................ 316 2. Nazi Policies in the Balkans-Voluntary or Forced? ................ 318 3. Abortion Policy in the Eastern Occupied Territories ................ 319 4. Abortion Policy in Baden-Alsace .............................................. 322 C. Prosecution's Theory of the Case .................................................... 325 I. Guilt of Individual Defendants .................................................. 326 2. Criminal Organizations and Groups .......................................... 327 3. Sources of Law .......................................................................... 329 D. The IMT's Judgment... .................................................................... 330 I. Abortion as a War Crime and Crime Against Humanity ........... 330 2. Abortion Activities as a Mark of a Criminal Organization ....... 331 IV. ABORTION AND THE NMT ........................................................................... 333 A. The Indictment in Greifelt ............................................................... 334 I. Count One---Crimes Against Humanity .................................... 336 2. Count Two-War Crimes .......................................................... 338 3. Count Three--Membership in a Criminal Organization ........... 338 4. Sources oflntemational Law ..................................................... 340 B. Prosecution Evidence of Abortion Crimes Presented at Trial.. ....... 341 I. The Nazi Abortion Policy in Poland ......................................... 343 2. The Nazi Abortion Program in Germany .................................. 345 i. RuSHA's role in Nazi eugenics policies ............................. 345 Winter 20 II] NUREMBERG AND THE CRIME OF ABORTION 285 n. Abortion policy toward Eastern workers ............................ 346 a. Himmler established the basic abortion policies (1942-43) ...................................................................... 347 b. Conti and Kaltenbrunner's implementing instructions (1943) ··········································································· 348 c. Further refinements of the procedures (1944) .............. 350 d. Evidence of abortions performed ................................. 352 111. Evidence linking Hildebrandt and Hofmann to the crime of abortion ........................................................................... 354 a. Prosecution evidence against Hildebrandt... ................. 354 b. Prosecution evidence against Hofinann ........................ 356 IV. Evidence of forced abortions .............................................. 358 v. German resistance to tbe Nazi abortion policies ................. 359 C. Defense Evidence Presented at Trial... ............................................ 363 I. Denial of Participation in the Abortion Program ....................... 363 2. Claim that All Abortions Were Consensual .............................. 364 D. Prosecution Theories oftbe Case .................................................... 368 I. Forcible Abortion as an International Crime ............................. 368 2. Voluntary Abortion as an International Crime .......................... 369 i. Domestic law ...................................................................... 370 ii. Article 46 of Hague IV (1907) ............................................ 371 iii. Medical ethics .................................................................... 3 73 3. Voluntary Abortion by Removing tbe Protection of Law ......... 375 i. Removal of jurisdiction from the Polish courts .................. 376 ii. Failure to extend tbe protection of German law ................. 377 E. Defense Theories oftbe Case .......................................................... 378 I. Denial of Culpable Involvement in Abortion ............................ 379 2. Argument that All Abortions Were Voluntary .......................... 379 3. Culpability May Not Be Predicated on Acts of Omission ......... 382 4. Necessity ................................................................................... 383 F. The Opinion and Judgment ............................................................. 384 I. Background Facts and General Criminal Policies and Activities ................................................................................... 385 2. Abortion on Eastern Workers .................................................... 387 3. Applicable Law ......................................................................... 389 4. Judgment of Individuals