Saint Matthew's

“Pastor Iovine, I think you are too blunt at times. To call the Speaker of the House dumb seems a little harsh.”

One of my weaknesses is tact. There are times when I am a little too judgmental. Also, I can be rather harsh, to use a word from the emailer. I don’t like wasting time. While I write too much and bloviate at times, I like getting to the point.

The Speaker tried to expound the notion that in order to reduce the cost of government, there needs to be fewer people. How to accomplish this goal? Promote family planning, i.e. abortion and contraception services. And who will get this money? Groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform abortion services. 

So, instead of reducing the programs that government offers to cut costs, the Speaker wants to expand “family planning” services, meaning she wants more abortions.

Tell me – doesn’t this sound dumb?

Oh, to attain such a high position in government … yet so dumb.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says that contraception will help stimulate the economy. Using her logic, the government mandating that parents can only have one child should be even more stimulating to the economy — less people taking less from government means the government would have more money to help others.

With all due respect to the Speaker, what she is suggesting is expanding contraception and in conjunction with that, abortion services, in order to keep the population down.

This is a scary idea. Or is it more of an idea that baffles the mind? Regardless of your opinion of contraception, for the Speaker of the House to suggest that fewer people would help the economy is just politically weird. Democrats should be slightly embarrassed.

During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a record profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

It makes my heart break that Planned Parenthood made a profit at the expense of 264,000 lives.

What makes me even sicker is that the government forked over $300 Million dollars to help them do it.

Excuse me while I vomit.

Yesterday, the Newsbusters blog posted an interesting “tip” they received about the New York Daily News and how tell ’instruct’ their reporters on how to report abortion issues. People like me, who are pro-life, have complained that the mainstream media purposely spins this issue in a pro-abortion manner.

For instance, pro-lifers are never “pro-life,” we’re always “anti-abortion.” On the other hand, the pro-abortion lobby is never pro-abortion, but are the softer “pro-choice” lobby.

Newsbusters shows that this subtle difference isn’t so subtle. It is a mandate from on high, at least, it appears, at the News.

Sad.

A member of Saint Matthew’s reminded me of the front page article in today’s Bergen Record – an abortion clinic in Englewood had to close its doors because anyone going there could get sick. To put it in an easy to understand way, the Englewood Center for Women is a pigsty. It is filthy. Instruments used at the clinic may not have been sterilized.

The saddest part of this story is that this clinic is one of the largest abortion mills in New Jersey. When over 10,000 children are killed each year at this clinic, we should all run to the bathroom and throw up. On average each day, 27 children are aborted at this clinic.

My heart breaks. So should yours.

The NY Times this past weekend fronted a story in their Sunday magazine basically raising the question about what is known as post-abortion syndrome – when women who have had abortions suffer from some kind of depression months or years after having the procedure. The reporter – Emily Bazelon – is quick to point out in the article that many in the scientific community reject this “syndrome,” but reality Bazelon tells a different story.

I’ve counseled a couple of women here in the Northern New Jersey area who have suffered some sort of depression that they claim stems to having an abortion in their past. Not to get into specifics of the cases, these women are suffering from a profound sadness that they killed their child and that God is angry at them. While there are different circumstances in the cases in which I have dealt with, the reality remains that many women find themselves facing the hardship that they indeed killed a child that was growing inside of them. It is truly a painful and heart-wrenching process to get beyond this reality.

For me, it has only been a tiny handful of cases. But for this new pastor, to have non-members of my church seek out counseling for the pain associated with abortion has to signal something. It may not be all women who suffer from this syndrome, but some women clearly do. Instead of minimizing the effects that abortion can have on women, as some in the scientific community appear to want to do, they should be helping these women as they battle the demons of abortion in their minds.

Check the article out. It is eye-opening.