Now it is common knowledge to quite a number of Maltese that a United Nations agency, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, last November urged our country "to review its legislation on abortion and consider exceptions to the general prohibition of abortion for cases of therapeutic abortions and when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest."

Apart from the comments by our bishops, of outstanding importance is our Government's reaction, through the head of the Prime Minister's Secretariat, that "the Maltese government does not agree with the Committee's recommendation to review Maltese legislation on abortion. We consider that abortion is in complete contradiction with one of the main tenets of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, namely that view all articles in the best interests of children are paramount."

Such comments are by their nature brief and to the point. Abortion is also against the UN Charter of Human Rights that recognises the right to life as a fundamental human right. I envisage that our country is in for a hard time of pressure from this international body and I do not expect it shall take no for an answer so easily. Our Prime Minister needs to know that he has the support and approval of the people he represents.

This UN Committee is made up of intelligent people. Not a lot of intelligence is needed to know that once exceptions to a basic principle are introduced, the principle will collapse in a matter of weeks. I am sure that these committee members know very well that almost all legislation in favour of abortion in other countries, has been introduced on the pretext of hard cases such as rape and incest. But are the 50 millions legal abortions performed annually because of hard cases?

I am also sure that this committee is aware of the history of abortion in the United States. They all have heard of the 31-year-old court case Roe vs Wade decided by the US Supreme Court. This court has ruled that the Constitution protects a woman's right to have an abortion. Many experts still doubt the validity of recognising abortion as a constitutional right. I do not intend to enter into this argumentation because I am not the most legally competent person to do so.

But what everyone is able to understand is that Roe vs Wade is a story of lies. The real name of Roe is Norma McCorvey who 31 years ago was the unmarried, pregnant young woman who was seeking abortion and the focal person of the fight for legalising abortion in the United States. She already had two other children, one of whom she had gave up for adoption.

A year ago, McCorvey confessed that she had experienced a profound change of heart. She admitted that she had fabricated her story of being raped and impregnated. She also admitted that she had purposely been used by pro-abortion attorneys to press a constitutional case and that she has never actually had an abortion.

The same story has been repeated in the case of Doe vs Bolton, with the real name of Doe being Sandra Cano. She was pregnant for the third time. She went to an attorney to get a divorce and get back her two children from foster care. Abortion had never crossed her mind.

This attorney presented a suit in her name to have an abortion. She confesses that she was not even aware of this suit and that she never went to court to pursue it. Her obstetrician also sued to be allowed to perform an abortion on her. The day before this had to happen she managed to run away from Atlanta to Oklahoma to avoid being forced into abortion.

The point is that it all started from pretending to pity a woman who hypothetically became pregnant because of rape. The result is that during these 31 years more than 40 million abortions have been procured in the US alone. Moreover, up to three years ago abortion was being performed legally up to few minutes before birth.

I am sorry to say that this is the path that the UN Committee is urging our country to follow. Perhaps it is crudely said, but it is nothing but the truth.

I am also sure that the UN Committee members have heard of Dr Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). He confesses that he has personally performed about 5,000 abortions and supervised another 10,000 in his clinic. Last year he made public the strategy employed in the Seventies to persuade Americans to turn in favour of abortion.

"We aroused enough sympathy to sell our programme of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the US. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media was 1,000,000... Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. the figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law" (January 2003 issue of the magazine Whistleblower). Absolutely no comments are necessary.

Let me end by reproducing a recent experience reported in The Times of London of December 13, 2004. Heather Gemmen became pregnant as a result of rape and she decided to bring up the baby herself. She has published a book about her experience. Her husband wanted her to abort but, she admitted, she "couldn't bear the thought of killing the innocent by-product of a terrible crime". Her daughter, now aged nine, is an accepted part of the family, through whom, Mrs Gemmen says, "I have gained more than I have lost."