In the opinion piece by Robin Rebeiro of SOS Malta (June 5) the author makes an interesting point about the need to protect women and human life in general and especially in view of the Millennium Development Goal of maternal health.

Helping women in such dire need, in so many parts of the world, is a just cause. How can anyone disagree with the noble objective of saving women's lives as laid out in EU-funded campaigns aimed at raising public awareness on maternal health? Unfortunately, abortion is often promoted as one of the solutions to lowering maternal mortality. Abortion is surreptitiously presented under the vague description of sexual reproductive health and reproductive health services.

For years the focus has been on legalising abortion in developing countries and this is now set to increase with President Barack Obama's commitment to make more funds available to promote worldwide abortion.

So the question that needs to be addressed becomes, does legalising abortion actually protect women's' health? History shows that maternal mortality declined substantially in countries such as the United States, England and Wales through the 1930s and 1940s, for example, coinciding with advancements in antibiotics such as penicillin and blood transfusions.

A country that has managed to successfully reduce its maternal mortality rate drastically in the last few years is the troubled island country of Sri Lanka. As part of their strategy, they ensured that professional midwives and supervisory nurse-midwives were widely available in rural areas. This included making appropriate drugs and equipment accessible to rural areas. The health authorities worked to improve communication, transportation and back-up services. Yet, in Sri Lanka abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother.

Despite the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing held in 1995, the United Nations Population Division claims that there has been no substantial decrease in maternal mortality or child mortality in the developing world since 1994. This is so notwithstanding the fact that in this same period, women have had unprecedented access to legal abortion.

Scott Fischbach, the executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, recently released a new brochure on maternal mortality at the 62nd World Health Assembly in Geneva. The argument put forward is that "women generally are at risk because they lack access to a doctor, hospital or antibiotics".

The drive to legalise abortion in Third World countries will undoubtedly trigger a higher demand for abortion, as it has in most countries. Naturally, this will result in even more injured women who then compete for already scarce medical resources. As a result, the number of abortion-related maternal deaths may actually increase.

If most maternal deaths can be targeted by better education, nutrition and improved health care services which include improved obstetrics throughout pregnancy and beyond, then why do so many international communities still focus so much attention on legalising abortion?

It is a case of simple economics. A one-time medical procedure such as an abortion is far less costly than the long-term health care costs of caring for a mother throughout the nine months of her pregnancy and post-natal care.

Pro-life groups are equally concerned with lowering maternal and child mortality rates. The pro-life approach excludes the slaying of the unborn as a solution as it equally rejects the concept that human life can be lowered to a mere economic consideration.