By Dave Andrusko
In an incredible, albeit not unexpected, turn of events, Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has potentially opened the door to sex-selection abortion on demand.
In 2013, the CPS decided it “was not in the public interest” to prosecute two abortionists caught on tape agreeing to abort because the mother did not want a girl.
But more amazing still, not only has the CPS now stepped in to stop a private prosecution of abortionists Palaniappan Rajmohan and Prabha Sivaraman (who were already scheduled to go to trial), but has used its power to quash the case.
The CPS admitted there is potentially enough evidence to bring a successful prosecution, but had concluded it would not be in the “public interest” to pursue the case.
“It is the second time in two years that the CPS has blocked a prosecution against the pair despite acknowledging that the evidence could lead to a successful prosecution,” according to the Telegraph’s John Bingham.
Aisling Hubert, who had brought the case against the two abortionists, lashed out at the decision and said she will consider an appeal.
“I believe this is a really sad day for women in the UK. We have abhorred the practice in China and India, where millions of (unborn) baby girls are killed simply for being girls.
“Yet when a case like this is exposed in the UK, the CPS actively works to stop a lawful prosecution.”
Sivaraman was filmed in an uncover investigation by The Telegraph newspaper in 2012. She was working both for private clinics and the National Health Service Hospitals at the time and was recorded telling a woman, “I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination.”
Bingham previously reported that Rajmohan “was filmed at the Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham, agreeing to conduct the procedure even though he told the undercover reporter: ‘It’s like female infanticide, isn’t it?’”
The CPS decision throws the already confused status of sex-selection abortion into further disarray.
Gender is not specified as a legal ground for abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act, which applies in mainland Britain. Pro-abortionists insist the law is “silent” on the issue and therefore what critics call gendercide is not illegal.
As NRL News Today reported, attempts by Members of Parliament have ended in a stalemated confusion. A private bill introduced by the Tory MP Fiona Bruce was supported 181-1.
But in February, an attempt to write the clarification formally into law failed 292 to 201 under a barrage of phony allegations about what the bill as amended would do.
While almost all criminal cases in England and Wales are brought to court by the CPS, any individual or group with evidence that a crime has been committed can present evidence to a court to initiate a private prosecution. According to Bingham, at that juncture the CPS either pursues the prosecution or formally drops it.
No dummies, the two abortionists “formally requested that the CPS taken the case over specifically to stop the prosecution. Judges have no powers to stop this happening,” Bingham explained.
The CPS said that although Miss Hubert, a member of the campaign group Abort67, did not herself have access to the original evidence needed to take the case forward, it had reviewed the files itself and decided to stop the process.
“Taking in to account all the other evidence we are aware of, whilst there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, this is truly very finely balanced indeed,” it said.
“However, the public interest considerations in not pursuing a prosecution outweigh those in favour.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre which supported Ms. Hubert, told Bingham:
“Last month, Parliament refused to enact an explicit ban on gender-abortion, now the CPS says that the law isn’t strong enough to allow prosecution of doctors filmed offering gender abortion.
“This ridiculous stalemate leaves the door wide open for gender abortion to continue unchallenged.
“Those in authority shout loudly that they oppose gender-abortion but refuse to take action against it when they have the chance, leaving women and baby girls unprotected.
“Worse still, they shut down other people’s attempts to hold doctors to account. Whose side are they really on?”