NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Go-ahead given to proceed with trial against second abortionist charged with agreeing to sex-selection abortion

by | Jan 27, 2015

 

By Dave Andrusko

Aisling Hubert

Aisling Hubert

The issue of sex-selection abortion, which became the center of a mounting controversy following an undercover investigation by The Telegraph, is gathering momentum both in the courts and in the House of Commons.

In December NRL News Today reported that abortionist Prabha Sivaraman had appeared in Manchester Magistrates Court. Sivaraman was one of two abortionists caught on video allegedly agreeing to abort a baby because the child was a girl.

That trial is thought to be the first of its kind in the U.K. What made the case unique is that while “almost all criminal cases in England and Wales are brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service, 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 The Daily Mail’s Jennifer Newton.

The prosecution against Sivaraman is being brought privately by Aisling Hubert. Hubert, 21, is being supported by the pro-life groups Christian Legal Center and Abort 67.

We also reported that there would be another hearing in January to decide whether to issue a separate summons against the second abortionist. That’s what happened Monday.

The BBC reported that “Birmingham magistrates granted a summons allowing the case against Dr Palaniappan Rajmohan” to go forward. Both abortionists “are accused of conspiracy to procure poison to be used with intent to procure abortion” which is contrary to section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

As was the case with Sivaraman, Aisling Hubert is the driving force behind the prosecution against Rajmohan.

According to the Christian Legal Center, Sivaraman is due to appear for a preliminary hearing before Manchester Crown Court on February 6.

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.”

The Telegraph’s John Bingham 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?’”

Meanwhile, as NRL News Today reported, the Crown Prosecution Service chose not to charge either abortionist.  The CPS did so, not because there wasn’t sufficient evidence, but because prosecution would not be in the “public interest.”

This provoked an outcry that transcended the customary pro-and anti-life divide. Initially it culminated in a 181-1 vote in Parliament in favor of the Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill, which MP Fiona Bruce introduced on behalf of a cross-party group that included 11 other female MPs.

But as we reported on January 22, the ante has been raised considerably.

“Abortion on grounds of gender could be formally outlawed in the UK within months after dozens of MPs backed a Parliamentary move to fast-track it onto the statute book,” Bingham reported. This was done even though the government, headed by David Cameron, is not behind the move, just as it opposed the motion last November.

What’s different this time around is, Bingham writes, that “More than 70 members, spanning the main parties, have put their names to an amendment to the Government’s Serious Crime Bill clarifying Britain’s abortion laws to exclude termination on grounds of the unborn baby’s sex.”

The amendment is to a bill “which contains new measures to combat domestic violence and female genital mutilation, has already completed its committee stage in the Commons and is on course to become law before the General Election in May,” according to Bingham.

Categories: Abortion Crime