The Student Room Group

Abortion laws left 'meaningless' as doctors put 'above the law'

Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, described as “very dubious” the decision overseen by his successor, Keir Starmer QC, not to charge two doctors who agreed to arrange abortions of baby girls purely because of their gender.

Britain’s biggest abortion provider declared that the decision showed that terminating babies because of their gender is not necessarily a crime.

The Crown Prosecution Service has told two doctors, who were exposed by an undercover Daily Telegraph investigation last year, that they will not be charged even though there was enough evidence, because it did not consider the issue to be in the public interest.

The CPS said the key reason for the decision was that the doctors would still be investigated by the General Medical Council.

But Lord Macdonald said this amounted to letting them “avoid criminal action” because of their professional status undermining the basic principle that “everyone is equal under the law”.

Tonight the GMC distanced itself from the CPS’s decision, insisting that, as a professional regulator, it should not be seen as a “substitute” for the criminal justice system and is not there to “punish doctors”.

Further doubt was cast over the credibility of abortion laws as the CPS issued a public explanation for its decision, arguing that it was down to doctors to “interpret the law” and that they had “wide discretion” to assess whether a termination is legal or not.

The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, who oversees the work of the CPS, confirmed that he was in discussions to “understand the issues” leading to the decision.

It followed a request from the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for “urgent clarification” to explain why charges were not brought.

The CPS’s ruling attracted cross-party criticism. Labour’s shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry, wrote to Mr Starmer calling for an urgent review of the decision.

Pro-life campaigners claimed that the uncertainty over so-called gender-selection abortion was the “tip of the iceberg” and that other limitations under the 1967 Abortion Act are being bypassed routinely.

David Burrowes, a Tory member of the all-party parliamentary Pro-Life Group, raised the issue in the Commons.

He said: “There is urgent need for a statement to clarify whether the restrictions on choice in the Abortion Act are now meaningless.”

He indicated support for plans to bring a private prosecution if the CPS does not reconsider on the basis that the evidential threshold has already been met.

Campaign groups are also taking advice on challenging the decision in the High Court through a judicial review.

Lord Macdonald indicated that such a move might succeed because there is usually a “strong public interest” in prosecuting crimes which are hard to detect, such as sex-selection abortion.

He warned that it would be a “dangerous path” to go down to allow cultural sensitivities to be a factor in a prosecuting decision, and questioned the rationale behind passing the matter to the GMC.

“It seems to me that it would be a slightly odd thesis that a professional person can avoid criminal sanction, criminal action, simply because he or she is subject to statutory regulation,” he told the BBC.

He added: “Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law and that includes, of course, professional people. Of course professional regulation is a threat, but there is no reason why people who are subject to professional regulation should thereby avoid criminal action it is very common for both to take place together.”

Mr Starmer took the unusual step of justifying the decision personally.

“This was a very difficult and finely balanced decision,” he said. “It was based on the individual facts of the case; it is not a policy decision.”

A statement from the CPS went on to emphasise that it is now down to doctors to decide whether abortions are legal.

Jenny Hopkins, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, said: “When looking at the culpability of the doctors in this case, we must take into account the fact that doctors are required to interpret the law and apply it to a range of sensitive and difficult circumstances which are not set out in the legislation.

“The evidence in this case was finely balanced and the law gives quite a wide discretion to doctors to determine when a risk to the health and well-being of a pregnant woman exists.”

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which carries out 55,000 terminations a year, went as far as to insist that sex-selection abortions are not illegal.

Ann Furedi, its chief executive said the law was “silent” on the question, despite insistence by ministers to the contrary.

She added that in some circumstances it would be “wrong” to refuse to consider an abortion request from a woman who cited the sex of her child as a reason.

She said: “The Abortion Act sets out very clearly that if a doctor believes in good faith that the abortion is in the interests of the physical or mental health of the woman then the abortion is legal.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10290200/Abortion-laws-left-meaningless-as-doctors-put-above-the-law.html


Sickening to say the least.

Scroll to see replies

I think they should be tried under the law. Being a professional doesn't suddenly make you exempt.

On the actual case though if it's causing you mental anguish that you are going to have a specific gender of child wouldn't that come under the mental health thing? What do you do with a mother who doesn't want a girl? They are likely to neglect that child or harm them. I'm not saying I agree with gender specific abortion I just think this is going to be a very difficult case.
Original post by monkyvirus
I think they should be tried under the law. Being a professional doesn't suddenly make you exempt.

On the actual case though if it's causing you mental anguish that you are going to have a specific gender of child wouldn't that come under the mental health thing? What do you do with a mother who doesn't want a girl? They are likely to neglect that child or harm them. I'm not saying I agree with gender specific abortion I just think this is going to be a very difficult case.


Where do you draw the line though? How do you divide those with a me tal health issues from those who just want a boy?

And anyone mentally unstable enough to harm a child because of its gender shouldn't be allowed to have a child at all.
Original post by The Angry Stoic
Where do you draw the line though? How do you divide those with a me tal health issues from those who just want a boy?

And anyone mentally unstable enough to harm a child because of its gender shouldn't be allowed to have a child at all.


My thoughts exactly under this reasoning they should have the child aborted anyway. It's all very confusing. A lot of the time it comes down to mother's choice and when this is the case aborting for any reason is allowed, even if it's irrational or discriminatory.

Perhaps an interim measure would be to refuse the abortion and contact social services who could then decide if they child would be in danger and take necessary precautions. Another solution could be banning people being told the gender of their child by the doctor though that delays the problem rather than stopping it and could still leave the child in danger.

I of course don't think children should be aborted due to gender but it is the wording of the law that leaves it broadly down to the mother to decide who can abort for whatever reason by claiming mental health.

EDIT: it also occurs to me that the abortion of disabled children (where the disability is not so severe they are unlikely to survive) is a more acceptable form of discrimination. Of course there are differences as you may not feel equipped to raise a severely disabled child but does that make it ok?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Al-Mudaari
Sickening to say the least.


Alternatively, how would you feel about parents aborting a baby because they could tell it was gay?

When is it ok to abort?
Reply 5
Its not always easy to tell what reasoning a person has to abort. We can't really fix this.
Reply 6
Original post by The Angry Stoic
Alternatively, how would you feel about parents aborting a baby because they could tell it was gay?


It's impossible to tell if a baby is gay unless you want to enlighten everyone on how we can tell if a child is into bestiality, incest, necrophilia etc?

Original post by The Angry Stoic
When is it ok to abort?


When the mothers life is in danger.
Original post by Al-Mudaari
It's impossible to tell if a baby is gay, are you purposely trying to be silly or do you want to enlighten everyone on how we can tell if a child is into beastiality, incest, necrophilia etc?


If there is in fact a gay gene/combination if genes - and I'm speaking purely hypothetically - you'd be able to tell, where with your examples you couldn't.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 8
Original post by shadowdweller
If there is in fact a gay gene/combination if genes - and I'm speaking purely hypothetically - you'd be able to tell, where with your examples you couldn't.

Posted from TSR Mobile


That's the thing you seem to struggle to grasp. The moment you can "tell" if they're gay [hypothetically speaking of course], you'll also by that same route tell if they're into all the other examples I've given above.
Original post by Al-Mudaari
It's impossible to tell if a baby is gay unless you want to enlighten everyone on how we can tell if a child is into bestiality, incest, necrophilia etc?



When the mothers life is in danger.


If you could tell? If we were able to tell through genetics somehow?

What about if the child has a congenial illness so it will die young and in pain?
Original post by Al-Mudaari
That's the thing you seem to struggle to grasp. The moment you can "tell" if they're gay [hypothetically speaking of course], you'll also by that same route tell if they're into all the other examples I've given above.


Are you suggesting all gay people are in to beastiality? Have you misunderstood the gay slang 'bear'?
Reply 11
abortions of baby girls


Blatant attempt at emotional manipulation. Baby girls aren't aborted, female foetuses are.


Anyway, I don't think the reason behind abortion particularly matters. If these people care that much about the sex of the baby then I wouldn't trust them with it anyway.
Original post by Al-Mudaari
That's the thing you seem to struggle to grasp. The moment you can "tell" if they're gay [hypothetically speaking of course], you'll also by that same route tell if they're into all the other examples I've given above.


Are the examples you gave, strictly speaking, sexualities?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 13
Am i the only one who sees it a bit sexist?
"I had an abortion because I didn't want a girl."
"I had an abortion because it was a boy."

What happened to the term "You get what you're given."
Plenty of people are unable to have children and would love to have a baby girl AND/OR boy, and people just abort them because they wanted the opposite?
It seems a bit selfish and unreal...
I mean I'm pro-choice an all but it seems a bit far fetched.

"I had an abortion because we're not financially stable"
"I had an abortion because I have health problems, mental and physical"

I don't know, but this kinda disgusts me.
Original post by Shazzarr
Am i the only one who sees it a bit sexist?
"I had an abortion because I didn't want a girl."
"I had an abortion because it was a boy."

What happened to the term "You get what you're given."
Plenty of people are unable to have children and would love to have a baby girl AND/OR boy, and people just abort them because they wanted the opposite?
It seems a bit selfish and unreal...
I mean I'm pro-choice an all but it seems a bit far fetched.

"I had an abortion because we're not financially stable"
"I had an abortion because I have health problems, mental and physical"

I don't know, but this kinda disgusts me.


It does seem incredibly sexist :yep:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 15
Original post by shadowdweller
It does seem incredibly sexist :yep:

Posted from TSR Mobile


I think I'm in shock :confused: I mean what the hell is going on with the world these days
Original post by shadowdweller
Are the examples you gave, strictly speaking, sexualities?

Posted from TSR Mobile


I think he's under the impression that by we as a society allowing consenting adults to have sex we are opening the gates for child molesters, people who have sex with animals and well... Anything really.
Original post by The Angry Stoic
I think he's under the impression that by we as a society allowing consenting adults to have sex we are opening the gates for child molesters, people who have sex with animals and well... Anything really.


Oh fun, another person who uses that logic.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by shadowdweller
Oh fun, another person who uses that logic.

Posted from TSR Mobile


It's not his fault really. Be constantly bombarded from childhood that tells you homosexuality is evil and is worse than sex with animals has that affect on people.
Original post by The Angry Stoic
It's not his fault really. Be constantly bombarded from childhood that tells you homosexuality is evil and is worse than sex with animals has that affect on people.


Yeah I get that. It's just repetitive to argue with :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest