How can procuring female infanticide not be a prosecutable offence?
Last year, the Daily Telegraph carried out an investigation into the abortion practices of certain doctors in certain clinics, and its findings were alarming. Not only were some medical professionals consenting to terminate pregnancies because the developing baby was female; they were pre-signing abortion forms in order to avoid the inconvenience of troubling two of them with having to conduct full medical examinations of the women concerned. One of the doctors consented to terminate a baby girl, even using the term ‘female infanticide’. Astonishingly, another said it was not her job to ask questions.
Since it is manifestly the legal responsibility of a doctor involved in consent to abortion to ask certain basic questions; and it is manifestly the legal obligation of a doctor involved in consent to abortion to carry out a physical and psychological examination of their patients; and it is manifestly the legal obligation of a doctor involved in consent to abortion to obey the law of the land, specifically as it relates to aborting a baby on the basis of gender selection, you would think that Keir Starmer QC and the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales – armed with sufficient evidence to prosecute – might be eager to enforce the law.
But no action is to be taken against the doctors who authorised abortions based on the sex of the child, because (we are told) to do so would ‘not be in the public interest’.
This is a bizarre, puzzling, not to say outrageous decision.
Certainly, it appears that no abortion actually took place, but does a person need to be killed before those procuring the murder may be arrested and prosecuted? To incite, conspire or contract to kill a person is unlawful of itself: it needs no successful execution before the CPS may gather evidence and bring charges. But, once again, we see the abortion laws of Parliament undermined, and so they ‘develop’ along ever-liberal lines.
It seems now that a doctor may offer to kill a child in the womb – for payment – for no other reason than she is the wrong sex. And this, according to the CPS, is not a matter of public interest.
If it be not in the public interest to prosecute these zealous doctors, is it not a matter of grave public concern that a culture exists within entire institutions that believes the law does not apply to them? How can it not be in the public interest to make it clear and explicit that abortion law is not otiose?
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is on the record as favouring a cut in the upper limit for abortion: he said a year ago: "There's an incredibly difficult question about the moment we should deem life to start. I'm not someone who thinks that abortion should be made illegal. Everyone looks at the evidence and comes to a view about when that moment is and my own view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it."
On the assumption that 12 is better than 24 (and, incidentally, much more in line with limits over the rest of the EU), it is clear that the Health Secretary isn’t afraid to put his head above the parapet and confront abortophiles like Diane Abbott and Harriet Harman, for whom any discussion on reducing the upper limit amounts to ‘another assault on women's reproductive rights’. Here is an opportunity for Mr Hunt to put his head above the parapet to enforce the law as it stands – with which, surely, all law-abiding abortophiles will agree. Not even Diane Abbott and Harriet Harman would countenance terminating a baby simply because it is to be a Diane or a Harriet. Where’s the gender equality in that?
It does seem strange that we live in a country where the CPS authorises charges to be brought against those who protest against abortion – on the grounds that banners may cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ under the Public Order Act 1986 – and yet they are not prepared to authorise charges to be brought against doctors who consent to gender-selective abortion, which is a blatant contravention of the limited conditions provided for in the Abortion Act 1967.
Unsurprisingly, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which carries out 55,000 abortions a year, has already declared that the CPS decision establishes that terminating babies because of their gender is not necessarily a crime.
Sorry, Mr Starmer, but if you consider this to be merely a matter for the GMC, you are saying it is a question of professional regulation and discipline, not criminal justice and sanction. You are saying that these doctors are somehow exempt from the law, or may subjectively interpret the law in a manner quite contrary to the clear will of Parliament.
This is not a ‘pro-life’ vs ‘pro-choice’ matter: it is in the public interest to prosecute, or the statutory limitations of the 1967 Abortion Act may be manifestly bypassed with impunity. And among certain groups in certain sub-cultures, the termination of baby girls will eventually become routine. This is morally repugnant, but no one will dare speak out, for fear of ‘cultural sensitivities’ and allegations of ‘racism’.