The Price of Fatherhood: Jens Spahn vs. The Party Head

The head of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Jens Spahn, succumbed to the pressure and stepped down from his position, following backlash of having a surrogate mother in the United States deliver a baby for him and his husband.

The reaction from his political peers was homogeneous, both from the opposing parties and from his own. While some wished him well, most made a point about authenticity with Spahn politically being against the practice of surrogacy, even going so far as supporting legislature against it, and then having a child this way all the same.

It sparked a debate about how laws only count for individuals that cannot afford to circumvent them, in this case by going to the US to look for a surrogate mother, which is legal there.

This, however, brings up some questions.

People in Germany profit from different, less severe rules abroad all the time. The most immediate example is cheap labor in supply chains that lead abroad. Without even looking beyond the borders of the European Union, one can easily find production where workers are not paid the equivalent of what is considered minimum wage in Germany¹.

So, what is the true problem at hand? Is it about taking advantage of different laws abroad? Is it about the severity of the act in Germany, compared to doing it abroad? Is it about doing so while in political power and if so, only because Mr. Spahn politically supported legislature against the practice in Germany?

Most likely it’s a combination of all, that conveys a bad look.

Taking a rule-based approach, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of other legal systems. With a few heinous exceptions, German law does not concern itself with an individual that decides to do something, that would be considered illegal in Germany, in a state where said act is legal. From this perspective Mr. Spahn and his husband should not face criticism.

One can only speculate if the severity of the act came into play here.

Assuming Mr. Spahn and his husband would not have been married, they would not have been able to adopt a child together in Germany. In the US this would have been legal. In this construct the act of adoption could be considered less severe than pursuing the wish for a child through a surrogate mother. Would the reaction have been the same?

Further questionable is, if the backlash through the media would have been any different if he had stepped down as party head before going through with his wish for a child. It seems evident that the politician in office cannot be separated from the individual. Therefore, statements based on party consensus and political ambition are directly linked with personal conviction.

The argument of authenticity came up multiple times in the aftermath, where a politician morally cannot be in power pursuing certain legislation and acting against it on the private plane.

The evaluation of whether the removal from office was necessary or not most likely comes down to one’s personal conviction, if a politician can have different public opinions as a politician and private ones as an individual.

This conflict shows another question that public figures need to face: Can political statements even be authentic, as they come from a place of ambition? Even an individual without any public appeal exposes him- or herself by making public statements. A person trying to gain popularity online tries to appeal to a certain audience, therefore possibly acting in a way that they would not without this ambition, and arguably more so, the more they stand to gain. Similarly, a politician, in their strive toward political power, either expresses opinions that fit the political agenda of the party, at least to a certain extent, or decides to step away from the pursuit of power.

In the case of Jens Spahn, one can only speculate if his professional opinion might also have been a private one, which was overcome by a personal wish to have a child of his own. The chancellor called the withdrawal from Mr. Spahn’s political position “inevitable”, which underscores how the former head of the CDU must have known that his decision to pursue his dream of a child with his husband will cost him his political position roughly nine Months ago².