Written by Kathy Clubb
February 6th 2024
The Hampton Park Women’s Health Clinic is an abortion mill in the suburb of Hampton Park in Melbourne. On January 12, a 30 year old mother of two presented for an abortion, but didn’t survive the procedure. Instead, in addition to her baby being killed, the young woman herself died. One can only imagine the impact this devastating event will have on the remaining children: they will go through life knowing that their mother died as a result of aborting their sibling.
Details are few, but there is much to glean from the short story.
The headline reads that the mother “had landed an exciting new job and was about to buy a family home when she went in for ‘minor’ surgery. Now her husband and two kids are left with nothing but questions”.
We are told that the woman declined a medical abortion, i.e. the abortion pill, as the staff nurse told her that that route “would lead to heavy bleeding and pain which could last for 30 days,” and that there was “no guarantee it would work, in which case, surgery would then be needed.”
Pro-lifers are usually condemned for pointing out that surgery after an ineffective medical abortion is not uncommon and that heavy bleeding is also very common, but as this data shows, even abortion workers have doubts about its safety and effectiveness. Even the Hampton Park abortuary website is surprisingly candid about the ineffectiveness of the abortion pill regime: it points out that there is a 2-5% failure for medical abortions up to 7 weeks gestation increasing to 9% failure for medical abortions to 9 weeks.
Another notable addition to the Daily Mail article is the insertion of a completely unrelated story from 2017: that of a man who died during a visit to a Melbourne dentist. Judging from the abortion story’s emphasis on the woman’s abortion being “routine” and a “minor procedure”, it seems obvious that the Daily Mail wants to reassure its readers, playing down the serious risks inherent in every abortion procedure. While it is true from a medical perspective that every medical procedure contains an element of risk, the addition of this irrelevant story along with the glaring omission of any reference to the unborn child reveals the anti-life bias of the media outlet.
Screenshots from the Daily Mail feeding the narrative that an abortion
is no different from any other medical procedure.
The abortion mill’s medical director stated that the woman had received a “routine minor gynaecological procedure under anaesthetic” and that “the procedure and anaethestic were uncomplicated however due to unforeseen circumstances”, the patient passed away.
The abortionist performing the deadly procedure on the woman was Dr Rudolph ‘Rudy’ Lopes. He called the woman’s husband to tell him that “the procedure was successful” but that her heart had stopped and paramedics had been called to work on her.
According to the Daily Mail, the police and coroner are investigating the cause of the woman’s death and Dr Lopes has voluntarily stood down until completion of the investigation.
Something omitted by the Daily Mail’s report is Dr Lopes’ highly immoral past. Although now employed as an abortionist, Lopes had previously been in private practice as an obstetrician/gynaecologist, but was suspended in 2018 after allegations of professional misconduct. The suspension lasted for three and a half years until a hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that Loes was guilty of the sexual harassment of a patient and a colleague. Although the medical board requested that Lopes’ registration be cancelled, VCAT disagreed, ruling that he had suffered enough by being suspended for a prolonged length of time. Lopes was allowed to continue working with some restrictions put in place; VCAT members decided that he posed no further risk to patients.
After the VCAT hearing, Lopes became involved with contact tracing and quarantine hotel management during the COVID pandemic. In August 2022, he began work at the Hampton Park abortion mill, following in the footsteps of the many abortionists who stoop to that line of work because they are unsuccessful in more honourable forms of medicine.
According to Lopes’ LinkedIn profile, he is “deeply passionate about advocating for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, particularly with respect to equitable access to comprehensive sexuality education, contraception and safe abortion care in LMICs.” (Low and middle Income Countries). He describes starting his work with the Hampton Park abortion mill as an “amazing opportunity and a fantastic challenge which brings together my passion in sexual and reproductive health care provision and my recently gained public health knowledge and experience!!”
The pro-life organisation, Live Action, reported on the event, noting that a first trimester abortion potentially causes “injuries to the woman’s uterus or cervix, and the intestines, bladder, and nearby blood vessels may also be injured. Women are also at risk of haemorrhage, infection, and death.”
It is not surprising that the Hampton Park abortion mill omitted these serious side effects from their website. Instead, as is usual when an abortion mill advertises its wares, the process of killing a child is described in the most palatable way possible:
“The doctor will then disinfect the area with an antiseptic. The cervix is then gently stretched in a process called ‘dilation.’ Once the doctor has stretched or dilated the cervix to an adequate width, a sterile plastic instrument is then slid into the uterus through the opening in the cervix. This instrument is called a ‘suction curette’ and resembles a curved plastic straw. Suction is created which then gently suctions the pregnancy and related tissues. Once the doctor feels the uterus is empty, she/he will then remove all of the instruments and finish by performing another ultrasound to confirm that your uterus appears empty and that the surgical termination of pregnancy has been successful. Most patients will have less than 50mls of blood loss when undergoing the procedure.”
We are left with little doubt that, like many who present for abortions, this woman and her husband sadly chose material prosperity over the life of their new child. The mother’s death is not a cause for rejoicing or triumphalism on the part of pro-lifers, though: nothing could be more regrettable than a couple paying the ultimate price for the decision that resulted in the death, not only of their child, but of the mother as well.
This extremely tragic situation should pull at the heartstrings of every decent person, but unfortunately, due to the pro-abortion propaganda campaigns of the last fifty years, people have become oblivious to the very real risks posed to mothers and apathetic, if not callous, about the humanity of the unborn child. The result of this sad state of affairs is that, while society is rightly shocked by the death of this mother, only members of the pro-life community will mourn the loss of the innocent child.