It has now been confirmed - as if we did not know all along - that abortionists have been fiddling the abortion certificates and indeed forging them. It seems from the press stories that some hospitals have been censured but is this a sufficient response? This is not simply a case of bureaucratic sloppiness or administrative incompetence, as Ann Furedi indicates when she describes 'pre-signing' as a "regulatory matter". Contrary to what Mrs Furedi says, if the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 are not complied with then a serious criminal offence has been committed and everyone involved is liable to a long prison sentence.
The point about the long prison sentence is that this severe punishment indicates how seriously the law still considers the killing of unborn children to be. We should not forget that the Abortion Act was drafted and supported by people who were fervently in favour of abortion being legalised and one would expect, therefore that abortionists would at least comply with the law that their supporters had produced. But they do not obey even their own law.
One difficulty is that the offence of illegal abortion is - quite rightly - so serious that the prosecuting authorities are scared to take action. If it really was just a regulatory matter, a few prosecutions might take place, a few people rapped over the knuckles, told not to do it again and fined a few pounds, which the abortion industry would have no trouble in paying. What is in issue, however, as a result of abortionists breaking their own law, is the prospect of doctors and nurses being sent to prison for many years. No wonder politicians and prosecutors keep their heads down but this difficulty is no excuse for inaction.
What we are faced with is the deliberate flouting of the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is one of the foundation stones of all civilised societies and a bullwark designed to provide protection against abuse for everyone, including unborn children, their mothers and their families. This deliberate law breaking by abortionists has been going on since the Abortion Act became law 45 years ago. ALDU wrote about this in 1982 and again in the article below which appeared in ALDU Newsletter 20 of Winter 1983.
Newsletter 20 Winter 1983
The Rule of Law
On the 20th August 1983 our Secretary wrote to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police concerning an article written in 'World Medicine' on the 28th May 1983 by a certain Dr. Ann Savage. In this article she stated that she “refers for termination everyone who requests it”. This appeared to this Association to be a clear admission that she disregarded the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 when referring women for terminations, and that therefore abortions following such referrals would be unlawful (cf section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861).
Our Secretary, however, was informed by the Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at the Metropolitan Police Office on the 27th September 1983 that “the Director of Public Prosecutions on the information available has directed the Police to take no further action at this time”. A similar admission had been made by Dr. Savage in the British Medical Journal of the 15th September 1979, and on that occasion too this Association referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Then too, so far as this Association is aware, no action was taken. It would appear, therefore, that the attitude of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this matter is part of a continuing policy of not following up evidence which would lead to the disclosure of what must undoubtedly be a large number of unlawful and criminal abortions.
No doubt if pressed the Director of Public Prosecutions would say that there were medical grounds for the abortions, despite the fact that Dr. Savage makes clear that she does not apply her mind to the question of whether there are medical grounds or not when referring someone for an abortion. This was the response of the Attorney General Sir Michael Havers Q.C. in the case of Professor Peter Huntingford, as reported in The Times of the 24th February 1982. The prosecuting authorities appear to ignore the fact that even if there are medical grounds for an abortion, it is a serious criminal offence unless two doctors have previously applied their minds to the question of whether there are medical grounds, and have formed the opinion in good faith that the balance of risk favours termination.
Anyone who wishes to see the Rule of Law upheld must take the gravest possible view of the attitude of the D.P.P. in this matter. There is no doubt that this attitude is bringing the law into disrepute, and giving the impression to the public at large, and to the medical profession in particular, that those whose duty it is to uphold the law are deliberately not fulfilling that duty.
