Media critic. Invader of
SJW safe spaces.
Depends. Was her opponent a transgender "woman"? twitter.com/peterdaou/stat…
Over 63,000 Duke Energy customers in Mecklenburg & Cabarrus Co. are waking up WITHOUT POWER! Here's the latest:… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
Doctors who agreed to arrange illegal abortions based on the sex of an unborn baby have been told they will not face criminal charges, despite prosecutors admitting that there is enough evidence to take them to court, it emerged on Wednesday night.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was accused of failing to uphold the law after it ruled that it would not be in the “public interest” to prosecute the two doctors exposed in an undercover Daily Telegraph investigation.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, on Wednesday night raised the case with the Attorney General. The two doctors were filmed agreeing to arrange terminations for women who requested them purely because they said they did not want to have a baby girl.
One of the doctors did so despite likening the practice to “female infanticide” while the other told a woman her job was not to “ask questions”.
The CPS acknowledged, following a 19-month inquiry, that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution with a “realistic prospect of conviction”. But it told police that a “public interest test” had not been met.
The CPS said that there was no need to mount a prosecution because the General Medical Council, the body which oversees the conduct of doctors, could deal with the case. However, the GMC has no criminal powers and cannot prosecute breaches of the law.
Mr Hunt voiced alarm at the decision and pressed for “urgent clarification” from the Attorney General.
He said: “We are clear that gender selection abortion is against the law and completely unacceptable.
“This is a concerning development and I have written to the Attorney General to ask for urgent clarification on the grounds for this decision.”
Sources familiar with the Scotland Yard investigation said that prosecutors saw the issue as “sensitive” and that it had become “political”.
And why has it become “sensitive” and “political”, you may ask? We can look to a recent case right here at home – the one of baby killer “Dr.” Kermit Gosnell, who was allowed to operate his abortion clinic for years without any significant state oversight, primarily because so-called “women’s rights” advocates think too much oversight of abortion clinics amounts to “invading the privacy rights of women.” We saw that right here in North Carolina when, earlier this year, the NC General Assembly (our state legislature) pushed for laws that would protect NC women from Gosnell types. It was strongly opposed by militant feminists who lied and stated that it would shut down all but one abortion clinic here in NC.
The “feminist” response here in NC and other states to recent proposals to strengthen protections for women at abortion clinics, the state of PA cowering and bowing under pressure from supposed proponents of “the best care possible for women” to relax their inspection times and standards – which lead to the Gosnell horrors, and the fact that the cases mentioned in the above link have become “sensitive” and “political” shows us once again that when it comes to “women’s health” and abortion, feminists will chose abortion over women’s health any day of the week. Not to mention the health of the unborn women who are aborted based on their sex. Who stands up for their rights? Certainly not feminists. Just ask TX state Senator Wendy Davis where she stands on this and watch her dodge and weave to try and completely avoid having to admit the sickening truth about her position.
It’s a disturbing commentary on the state of modern feminism, and we must continue to push back against it – because, dammit, it IS in the public interest.
Comments are closed.