“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
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.
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.
‘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
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
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