By Dave Andrusko
If you are a NRL News Today reader who has read many or most of the over 20 stories we’ve written on sex selection abortions in Great Britain, you will not be surprised that the latest developments may be ambivalent, at best.
Last week The General Medical Council ended its investigation of Prabha Sivaraman, an abortionist who was recorded saying to a woman: “I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination” and went forward with another.
A spokesman for the GMC did not explain its reasons, saying the body would not discuss “cases that are closed with no further action” or ongoing inquiries.
But the GMC also decided to convene a separate disciplinary panel in the case of a second abortionist, Palaniappan Rajmohan “which will decide whether his fitness to practise is ‘impaired,’” according to the Telegraph’s Claire Newell and Edward Malnick. “He could be struck off the medical register if the panel rules against him.”
But Rajmohan could also merely be suspended or have restrictions placed on the kind of work he can do.
As NRL News Today reported, undercover reporters from the Telegraph went to nine clinics in different parts of the country, accompanying pregnant women. In their latest story Newell and Malnick explain
In two cases doctors were filmed offering to arrange terminations after being told the mother–to–be did not want to go ahead with the pregnancy because of the sex of the unborn child.
A woman who was 12 weeks pregnant had an appointment with Dr Rajmohan at the Calthorpe clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham.
She explained that she wanted to terminate her pregnancy because she had discovered she was having a girl but her and her partner “don’t want a girl”.
“Is that the reason?” asked the doctor, who introduced himself as Dr Raj. “That’s not fair. It’s like female infanticide isn’t it?” When the pregnant woman asked if he could put down a different reason for the termination, the doctor said: “That’s right, yeah, because it’s not a good reason anytime … I’ll put too young for pregnancy, yeah?” The patient agreed
The narrative is exceedingly lengthy. What follows is a much abbreviated account with links to stories that offer more details.
After the Telegraph published its findings, Andrew Lansley, the then Health Secretary, asked the police to investigate.
In September 2013, following a 19-month-inquiry, The Crown Prosecution Service found that there was enough evidence to warrant a prosecution with a “realistic prospect of conviction.”
But the CPS told Scotland Yard not to charge the two abortionists because the “public interest test” had not been met.
When Aisling Hubert, a pro-life campaigner, sought a private prosecution (which is permissible in England and Wales), the CPS quashed the case.
Meanwhile, there was a furious debate over whether sex-selection abortions were illegal under the 1967 Abortion Act. Attempts by Members of Parliament to make it clear that they are illegal have ended in a stalemate.
Last November a private bill introduced by the Tory MP Fiona Bruce was approved almost unanimously–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. Powerful pro-abortion organizations, aided by various Trade Unions, opposed the clarification as did the government of David Cameron.
We will update you when more is learned about what disciplinary action is taken against Palaniappan Rajmohan.