Coronavirus- a virus that has caused mass economic, social, political, and personal change. What started as a single case, has turned our norm into mass economic and public shutdown. Across America, each one of us has experienced an impact of the virus in some way, shape, or form. Whether it be your hairdresser, athletic team, church, school, or business, the virus has managed to squeeze itself into everyone's personal lives one way or another. With the virus comes great frustration- quarantine, curfew, canceling of events, absence of schooling, government decisions, and honestly any shred of normalcy any of us had just a matter of months ago.
Recently, an article published by Fox of Wilmington explored COVID and the constitution concerning the government's struggle to balance collective safety with personal autonomy. With the past few months being locked in with harsh restrictions and no end in sight to the virus, naturally, people are going to become a bit uneasy and worrisome regarding when or if their lives will ever return back to normal, even slightly.
On the thirteenth of March, President Trump declared a national emergency and promised a robust federal response along with cooperation with the states. Since then, each individual state has responded differently to the virus while considering federal health guidelines. In Fox News’s article, an analyst has found legal disputes in every state along with claims that certain public safety measures are in fact violating individual civil liberty as guaranteed by the constitution itself.
“At this point, we’ve seen courts weigh whether certain stay-at-home orders and assembly orders are constitutional and they have been mostly deferential towards the state,” said Lata Nott, a First Amendment Fellow at the Freedom Forum. “And that’s because when they’ve done the balancing test, we’re still in fairly early days of this pandemic in it’s an emergency situation. And the idea behind it is that First Amendment rights are never unlimited and they need to be balanced with public health.”
Many lawsuits correlate directly to discrepancies over what is considered an "essential service". Critics have pointed out examples such as abortion clinics being staggered while thousands of non-violent criminals have been freed from prison. Additionally, other lawsuits concern privacy rights which include government monitoring the use of cell phones "minus personal data" to track the spread of the virus.
Talk about nonexistent normalcy - COVID has unorganized policies in direct regard to fundamental rights. How is that fair?
Here are just a few examples:
-In freedom of assembly, a challenge to New Hampshire is the prohibition on gatherings of 50 people or more
-In free speech, Newark, New Jersey officials had threatened to use the states "public alarm” and laws to prosecute those spreading false reporting on COVID-19 through social media
From Fox News's article, a quote I found that accurately highlighted this situation came from David French, a senior editor at The Dispatch: “You’re going to see different states taking different approaches. You’re going to see the president liking some of them and disliking others, but really having no authority to trump any given state’s approach to things,” said French. “Even though the overwhelming financial resources rests with the federal government, the overwhelming amount of legal power rests with the governors.” I found French’s quote to be very accurate and in sync with what has been going on. Every state really is cracking down on strictness differently. From my perspective here in Pennsylvania, I have certainly become frustrated with what seems like drawn out measures appointed by Governor, Tom Wolf. For example, businesses that refrain from contact with other people that could easily follow the six-foot social distancing rule are still prevented from opening even though we are now approaching the green zone.
In my opinion, while I believe that certain COVID-19 restrictions were more than necessary at the beginning and height of the virus, respectfully, I also believe that we are not in the same place as we were just a few months ago, meaning that certain restrictions should be lifted especially when it comes to limiting people in violation of individual civil liberty. I think it is unacceptable for the government to be monitoring our cell phones even if it’s “minus the personal data” that really isn’t reassuring in the slightest? Additionally, there should not be a battle over what is essential when it comes to personal choice with healthcare- reproductive health care clinics and abortion clinics should be allowed to remain open regardless of the virus. As an individual that has also experienced quarantine for months now, it would certainly be nice to see things be less strict especially since the curve of the virus is now flattening. Of course, I do still believe that certain measures need to be taken in order to maintain COVID-19 to prevent a future wave or continuous spread, they just don't have to be as intense as they were before.
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/05/827758328/the-controversy-around-essential-businesses
https://thedispatch.com/people/5849328-david-french
No comments:
Post a Comment