NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

British judge rules pro-lifer must pay an abortionist’s $37,0000 legal fees

by | Apr 13, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

Prabha Sivaraman

Prabha Sivaraman

Last month NRL News Today reported bad news in the global fight against sex-selection abortion. Now there is even worse news. The pro-lifer who brought charges against  abortionists caught on tape agreeing to perform sex-selection abortions has been told to pay one of the abortionist’s legal fees.

First, the background.

In March, for the second time in two years the British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) blocked prosecution of two abortionists accused of a willingness to perform sex-selection abortions, even though the CPS admitted there was potentially enough evidence to bring a successful prosecution.

In 2013, the CPS argued it was not in the “public interest” to pursue prosecutions against Palanippan Rajmohan and Prabha Sivaraman.

Then, in March 2015, the CPS stepped in to quash a private prosecution of the abortionists brought by  pro-lifer Aisling Hubert. (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 The Daily Mail’s Jennifer Newton.)

But once Hubert was barred from continuing (even though both abortionists were already scheduled to go to trial), “Judge Martin Steiger QC, sitting at Manchester Crown Court, ruled that Ms. Hubert must now pay out to cover Dr. Sivaraman’s legal costs,” the Mirror reported. The bill is £25,000– roughly $37,000. The story does not address  the question of Rajmohan’s legal bills.

Gender is not specified as a legal ground for abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act. 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 would happen.

   When a private individual or group presents evidence that a crime has been committed, 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,”  the Telegraph’s John Bingham explained. “Judges have no powers to stop this happening.”

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 back in March:

“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?”

   Now, on top of all that, Ms. Hubert faces the prospect of being forced  to pay an abortionist’s $37,000 legal fees.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: