The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade seems to apply to the current debate on health care—the right to privacy. In that ruling, the Supreme Court established what is said to be “settled law” that a right to privacy is found in the constitution, even though not specifically stated.
Today’s health care bills include companions to H.R. 3200 in the Senate and the House. These bills and especially H.R. 3200 have a common element. It is the stripping of privacy from American citizens. Just as a woman has the sacred right to manage her reproductive rights (per the Supreme Court), millions of Americans who would be fined for not having health care insurance have the right of privacy on how they manage their health care.
An excerpt from Mr. Justice Blackmun’s deliverance of the opinion of the court states:
“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”
Essentially, I argue that any provision in the various bills circulating through Congress that could or would limit, direct, or propagate medical direction based on age and/or the condition itself is unconstitutional, under the right to privacy and other tenets of Roe v. Wade.
I argue that the degree of medical care suitable and available for the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s medical condition is up to the individual and the individual’s physician. The available cure, prevention, or repair must be based on equal application of accepted general medical opinion on the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s condition and cannot be restricted or directed by the federal government or any state in any manner.
I argue that any requirement requiring an individual to attend mandatory counseling sessions on life decisions is a violation of that individual’s right to privacy.
I argue that any fine for failure to keep health insurance is a violation of the right to privacy established under Roe v. Wade. I am a guy, but I can still do with my body as I choose.
I argue that the federal government in its desire to create a nanny state is trampling on the precious tenets of this 1973 Supreme Court decision—a right to privacy for the individual.
I argue that any attempt to house my or another person’s medical records with the government or any type of quasi-government agency, a requirement also found in these bills, is a violation of search and seizure and the aforementioned right to privacy.