JERUSALEM – Restrictions on access to abortion would turn women’s bodies into vessels to be “used” by fetuses, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“A restriction on access to abortion turns women’s reproductive capacities [...]]]> Sunstein: Fetuses ‘use’ women, abortion limits ‘troublesome’
Obama regulatory chief offers radical new interpretation of Constitution

JERUSALEM – Restrictions on access to abortion would turn women’s bodies into vessels to be “used” by fetuses, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“A restriction on access to abortion turns women’s reproductive capacities into something to be used by fetuses. … Legal and social control of women’s sexual and reproductive capacities has been a principal historical source of sexual inequality,” Sunstein wrote in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution.”

In the book, obtained and reviewed by WND, Sunstein sets forth a radical new interpretation of the Constitution. In one chapter, titled “Pornography, abortion, surrogacy,” Sunstein argued against restrictions on abortion and pornography.

“Restrictions on abortion, surrogacy and free availability of pornography are troublesome,” he wrote.

“I do not mean to oppose equality to liberty. … Liberty does not entail respect for all ‘choices,’” he maintained.

Sunstein’s views on fetuses are not limited to his 1993 book.

WND reported earlier this month that in a 2003 book review, Sunstein argued there is no moral concern regarding cloning human beings since human embryos, which develop into a baby, are “only a handful of cells.”

In addition to Sunstein’s moral disregard for human embryos, WND reported the Obama czar several times has quoted approvingly from an author who likened animals to slaves and argued an adult dog or a horse is more rational than a human infant and should, therefore, be granted similar rights.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110934

How long until Cass Sunstein would go after the terminally ill, incapacitated, or dead? Keep reading:

TEL AVIV – President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.

In his 2008 book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as “routine removal,” posits that “the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”

“Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend,” wrote Sunstein. “In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life.”

The problem is that Sunstein views people as nothing more than animals. Do I think people should be organ donors? Yes (I am one), but it should be their choice: not the state’s choice, or the federal government’s choice. What has happened over the last thirty years is the mindset that humanity is just part of a large machine. When a part (a human) breaks down, then another part is found to replace that part and the machine keeps going. All people have worth and are important in God’s eyes. Life is precious and humanity is not part of a large cosmic machine.

Gen 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  (27)  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mankind is to have dominion over the earth and all the creatures of the earth. We are to treat them properly and be good stewards over what God has given to us.

To The Editor:

It appears to us that today’s Pharisees differ little from the Pharisees of yesteryear. Persecution of Christ, persecution of our President Obama.

“Blessed are the [...]]]> This letter to the editor appeared in the Syracuse Post-Standard on October 12, 2009. I am typing out the whole letter, but leaving out the writer’s name.

To The Editor:

It appears to us that today’s Pharisees differ little from the Pharisees of yesteryear. Persecution of Christ, persecution of our President Obama.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth.” May we strive at least to be at peace with each other.

Now, the first question that comes to mind is: what is a Pharisee? The Pharisees of the time of Jesus Christ were the Jewish religious leaders. The Pharisees were strict followers of the Law and often went beyond what the Law mandated. They also tended to demand more of other Jews than what they themselves were willing to do. The Pharisees saw God as a taskmaster — not loving — and felt that keeping the Law was what was important. In other words, their motivation was wrong: they should have been keeping the Law because they loved God, not because they wanted to appear holier than others.

Matthew 23:1-7 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,  (2)  Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:  (3)  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.  (4)  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.  (5)  But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,  (6)  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,  (7)  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

Now I am not sure exactly who the letter writers are referring to when they discuss “today’s Pharisees.” There have been extremely few public religious figures that have spoken out against President Obama. Perhaps the letter writers are referring to the conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck or maybe the leadership in the GOP. And perhaps they are referring to President Obama’s recently awarded Nobel Peace Prize. Personally, I am guessing President Obama won the prize as a symbol, not for any accomplishment. Please read:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/09/tommy-seno-obama-nobel-prize-win/

Truly what bothers me about the letter is the comparison of Barack Obama to Jesus Christ. That comparison has been made by many people ever since President Obama entered the presidential race. Louis Farrakhan called Barack Obama “the Saviour” back in 2008. I quote:

Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviour’s Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaims,

“You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77539

This painting was going to be unveiled.

To compare President Obama to Jesus Christ is blasphemous. The “persecution” that President Obama has had is nothing — in fact, less than nothing — compared to what Jesus Christ endured before His crucifixion. Physically, Jesus Christ was beaten, spat upon, scourged, and had His beard plucked and then forced to carry his cross to Calvary. There He was nailed to the cross and gave up His life. Spiritually, the suffering He bore was even worse as He had the sins of the world placed upon Him. Jesus Christ died for the ungodly, so they can be reconciled with God the Father. He is the Saviour for those that come to Him in faith and trust in Him and have repented of their sin.

Romans 5:6-10 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.  (7)  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.  (8)  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  (9)  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.  (10)  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

There is simply no comparison between Barack Obama and Jesus Christ. AND when you consider President Obama’s position on abortion, you cannot compare the two.

Lastly, the Bible verse the letter writers used is really a mixture of two verses. The correct verse is:

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

What peace has Obama made? If anything, he has worked against the cause of peace with his efforts against Israel.

The other verse they mixed in is:

Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

President Obama is anything but meek.

The following is excerpted from “Eugenics Impulse Alive and Well on SCOTUS,” UncommonDescent.com, Sept. 25, 2009: “In the infamous case of Buck v. Bell the court considered a Virginia law authorizing the forced sterilization of mentally challenged [...]]]> THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND EUGENICS (Friday Church News Notes, October 2, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) –

The following is excerpted from “Eugenics Impulse Alive and Well on SCOTUS,” UncommonDescent.com, Sept. 25, 2009: “In the infamous case of Buck v. Bell the court considered a Virginia law authorizing the forced sterilization of mentally challenged people. The state proposed to use the law to sterilize Carrie Buck on the ground that she was feeble minded and thus a genetic threat to society. The court upheld the law, and Ms. Buck was in fact forcibly sterilized, as were tens of thousands of other people across the nation after Buck v. Bell was decided.

In his opinion upholding the law [Oliver Wendell] Holmes wrote: ‘It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.’ Famously, Holmes concluded his argument with the phrase: ‘Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’

Buck v. Bell has NEVER been overturned. It remains the law of the land in the United States of America. To be sure, forced sterilization of the mentally challenged is currently out of fashion among legislators and the last such procedure was performed in 1981. But what if eugenics were to make a legislative comeback, perhaps in response to a crime wave. Would the current United States Supreme Court follow Buck v. Bell? Yes, I am afraid it would if Ruth Bader Ginsburg is to be believed.

In a recent interview Ginsburg was asked what she thought of the lack of federal funding for abortions. She replied: ‘… Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.’ Scary stuff that. Does anyone else get a chill down their spine when a high ranking official of their government starts talking about controlling the growth of ‘populations that we don’t want to have too many of’?”

http://wayoflife.org/files/00e8618abfb0fce3477fd0b4e5f5b7ec-428.html