Posted on  Fri, June 29, 2012 at  10:09 a.m. (EST) & 7:39 p.m. (IST), JUNE 2012 Edition

Ramesh Dad's Memoriam:

 Please Support PS:

 PS  Interest Survey

Like us on Facebook



Home |Expressions |Impressions |Hotpressions |News| Greek Life |Education |Entertainment |Multimedia |Sports | Food |CulturalLife |Features| Archives | Top 5


Custom Search

“Robert's Ruling Benefits Bodies Imposing Insurance Mandate Mightily!

Ramesh C. Reddy

What if  U.S Supreme Ct. Chief Justice John Robert's decision to side with the liberal justices of the court has his eyes looking into the future for the welfare of all individuals and their bodies?

It is totally okay for the government to mandate individual health insurance if the government’s vested interest is in the welfare of the individual. By mandating that every individual who does not have insurance by 2014 will pay a penalty tax is a good way of penalizing the individual. It also shows that the government wants every individual insured so if they get sick, they can have medical insurance to pay for their sickness.

It is exciting to me that the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the individual mandate of the Patient Protective Affordability Care Act because it sets an excellent precedent regarding government having a role in the lives of individuals for the individual’s own welfare and benefit. In essence, the government cares for your body and what goes on in your body. Roberts cares for your body and what goes on in your body.

First, it was very upsetting that of all the justices to side with the liberal justices of the court, it was Roberts who sided with them. It was hard for me to comprehend that and take it in. My disappointment was also shared with my pastor but the more I thought about it, the more excited I got.

The liberal justices were actually concurring with Roberts that it is okay for the government to enforce penalties if individuals don’t protect their bodies with insurance. How nice of the government to care for an individual’s body and forcing them to do the right thing.

My excitement is not necessarily that Obamacare was upheld because I do not agree with employers being forced to provide contraceptives to their employees if they have religious objections to it. In due time, my belief is that Roberts would see this as infringing on an organization’s religious freedom and overturn this part of Obamacare if it comes before the court.

My excitement is in the fact that four liberal justices were okay to say that it is perfectly alright to force individuals to buy insurance for the sake of their body.

Don’t you see the implications of it?

A great precedent has been set that the government can interfere in the lives of individuals and what they do with their body.

The argument, “This is my body, I can choose what I want to do with my body: if I want insurance, I will get it, and if I don’t want insurance, I won’t get it’ will not fly anymore.” There will be consequences.

Now if an individual is forced to get insurance to cover their bodies if they get sick, what stops the government or the courts to intervene in other areas of a person’s body?

A precedent has been set by Roberts and the four justices that the government can intervene in the lives of individuals for the greater good.

This means if Roe v. Wade ever comes before the court, it is my hope that the liberal justices will be okay to overturn Roe v. Wade on the same grounds that the court can intervene in the lives of individuals and force them to take an action for the greater good. In this case, it would be to protect the body of an unborn child from irreparable harm caused by abortion.

The individuals’ response that  says, ‘This is my body and I get to do with it what I want to do, who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body’ will not fly anymore on the same grounds that Obamacare was upheld for the greater good of all individuals. There should be no more Pro-Choice when it comes to insurance or when it comes to abortion!

The liberal justices and the court cannot say that they are willing to mandate individuals to buy insurance for their bodies or a penalty will occur and be silent if an individual wants to kill a body residing in their womb. Welfare of an individual is at stake here, that of an unborn baby’s body residing in the mother’s womb.

This great precedent set by Roberts and the liberal justices well maybe the precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade because the court and government should have a vested interest in protecting all life from disease, death, etc. If insurance is the way to protect against disease and death, so be it. If overturning Roe v. Wade is the way to protect the baby’s body from death, so be it.

The liberal justices cannot pick and choose which areas of individuals’ lives they want to force and which areas they want to take their hands of. In both areas bodies are involved, one of adult individuals and the other of baby individuals, both with bodies.

The Pro-Life movement should be happy about the court forcing individuals to buy insurance for their own good because one day this ruling can be used as precedent to force individuals to keep the baby in their body so death and harm does not occur to the baby’s body.

Photo by Ramesh C. Reddy

Forget the idea that it is your own body and that you have a right to choose what you do with it. All rights are not absolute especially when it comes to the body.

Whether you like it or not, the government always has a vested interest in what you do with your body. You cannot use your body to harm yourself. If you decide to commit suicide and fail, the government does not sit aside and say, ‘Poor human, he/she failed; let him/her try again for it is his/her own body!’

Attempted suicide is considered a crime against the self and is prone to maximum sentencing in a hospital or mental ward until full recovery. If you owned your own body, there would be no reasons for those measures.

If you are Pro-Life, you should be happy with Roberts regarding this mandate because if Roe v. Wade ever comes before him, he will not have to shy away from overturning it, if he uses the same reasoning I used to do a comparative analysis of the individual mandate of Obamacare for the health and welfare of each individual’s body vs. preserving the health and welfare of an unborn babies’ body in a mother’s womb.

Liberals who are happy with the individual mandate being upheld should worry that the court can intervene and overturn Roe v. Wade stating an individual does not have a right to do whatever they want with their body whether it is keeping themselves from being medically insured or keeping themselves exempt from the consequences of abortion, which is taking of a life of another body.

It is my hope that the liberal justices don’t turn away from doing the right thing for the sake of the body if Roe v. Wade ever comes before the court.

Ramesh C. Reddy can be reached at

Express Your View




Reddy's Right Rhetoric:

Obama Offered Evangelical Entitlement Wrongly With Birdsall’s Blessing! By Ramesh C. Reddy (June 25, 12, 10:02 a.m.)

"Rainbow's Registered Trademark Trampled Promoting PrideFest’s Parade Promiscuously! By Ramesh C. Reddy (June 14, 12, 11:51 a.m.)

“Purge PPACA's Baby Body Deaths Outlawing Obama's Order!” By Ramesh C. Reddy (May 29, 12, 7:19 p.m.)

“Bible Believing Organizations Opposing Obama, Ok!" By Ramesh C. Reddy (May 23, 12, 11:45 a.m.)

“Obama's Opinion Of Marriage Menaces Candidly Character!  (May 14, 12, 3:54 p.m.) By Ramesh C. Reddy



Copyright 2012 Pittsburgh Standard
Reproduction or reuse for profit prohibited without written consent from Pittsburgh Standard