Since mid-March the national government, state governments, and local county governments have all been putting forth their own recommendations and requirements to citizens to try and prevent the spread of COVID-19. From curfews and stay-at-home orders to checkpoints on local streets and mask requirements, Americans are seeing new precautions put into place every day.
People have now found themselves asking a new question: are their civil liberties being attacked with these new precautions or are these requirements necessary for the greater good of their communities? Six conservative women decided to share their opinions on this issue.
Some ladies think that these precautions have in fact crossed the line into impeding on our civil liberties and will have negative consequences in the future.
Do you think these requirements and precautions being put into place are necessary or over-reaching from the government?
Ashley, 32
“Overreach. You have to be sick and it has to be able to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, that you could harm others if you leave you home for the state to be able to force you into quarantine. Quarantine is for the sick.
Forcing healthy people to stay at home, forcing businesses to close, crippling the economy, and the majority of Governors treating rural areas like large cities is abusive, irresponsible, and we will see the suicide numbers climb with the unemployment.”
Hannah, 20
“These precautions are definitely unnecessary. While I understand the stay at home order, I don’t think arresting people for praying is needed. Plus, many people (including myself) are worried about if the government would stop these “needed precautions.” Or if they will never stop. Plus I don’t trust the vaccine that could come out.”
Nicole, 40
“I do not agree with the level of these precautions. We, as a country, are way too eager to give up our freedmen because the government tells us it’s for our own protection. It happened after 9-11 and we never got those freedoms back. Once things are taken from you, it doesn’t have to be given back. I think politicians are using this “crisis” as a way to grab our freedoms from us. How is it that the government can tell us we can’t go to church? Church isn’t allowed, but I can go get an abortion if I want to right now.
It’s clear that politicians are using this situation to propel their agenda. Democrats see this as an opening to impose socialistic programs and we should all be scared of that. Since when is it okay for the national guard to go door to door making sure people are staying in their houses? Or to require people to wear ankle monitors who test positive so the government can make sure they’re not leaving their houses? People ask why the 2nd Amendment is essential? This is why. It’s there for when the government over steps their boundaries. I’m not advocating to use force against the government, but we the people need that option. If you look at the states that are going overboard with the mandates, they’re all Democrat controlled. NY, NJ, CT, RI etc. I live in CT and our governor says this could go on for months. He is loving having control over the people. He gets to tell business when they can reopen, what they can sell, who can shop when etc.”
What long term consequences, if any, do you think will come from these requirements after the pandemic is over?
Ashley, 32
“I worry that state authority might be used for lock-downs more often, now that they realize they have gotten away with it. I have even seen a few people mention this should happen, “Every flu season.” I worry that too few Americans are thinking about the implications for small businesses and the economy.“
Hannah, 20
“As for long term, I think we should be more equipped to handle such a pandemic if it should happen again. Have the medical teams doing constant research on what’s coming around. As well as this, I think China should be punished for lying to the rest of the world for what was happening. They didn’t report the facts, it wasn’t until the whistleblower came out (and mysteriously died, but that’s a story for another day) and told the world the truth. Now look where we are, so I think China needs to be punished, either cutting off trade completely or something to that effect.”
Nicole, 40
“As far as long term consequences, I do think there will be some. As to what, I’m not sure yet. Every time something like this happens, we lose a little more freedoms. When is enough, enough”
While other ladies think that these requirements have not been over-reaching and have been necessary for the protection of the greater community.
Do you think these requirements and precautions being put into place are necessary or over-reaching from the government?
Kimberley, 24
“I think the precautions that have been taken are needed and haven’t overreached given the crisis but they set a scary precedent for what the government could do in the future.
I think these precautions being put into place are necessary to not overwhelm our healthcare system and to protect those who have weak immune systems. We need to ensure our healthcare system has the resources to adequately treat each person.”
Allison, 20
“I think they are necessary. Your rights as a citizen only extend to the point that they interfere with someone else’s rights. People who are asymptomatic and still going out in public risk infecting people who are immunocompromised or have loved ones that are. Repeating this cycle over and over can easily lead to a public health emergency.
At the same time, the economy is critical, and this can’t afford to go on forever. The government should have stricter restrictions, but for a shorter period of time so this does not drag on indefinitely.”
Mia, 22
“I think the precautions and requirements are necessary but that they don’t go far enough. I believe that if you are going to close down the economy then you need to close down all of the economy except the essential services. There is no reason why McDonalds drive thru needs to be open or other fast food drive thrus. Similarly if you going to order or suggest people to stay inside then you need to enforce those orders and not say “oh we suggest.” If you have a legitimate reason to shut this country down, which this is, then actually enforce it and shut down all unnecessary businesses and attractions down. Beaches don’t need to be ope, etc. Similarly if churches are closed, and they should be, so should abortion mills be as well.
I think people who aren’t complying with CDC guidelines and the advice of world renowned experts like Dr Fauci and Birx about social distancing and staying at home are irresponsible, should get in trouble (fines), and are selfish. Children, literal 17 year olds have fought on the beaches of Normandy for complete strangers and we are being asked to sit home with all the luxuries of the modern for the sake of our fellow citizens and our own elderly/compromised family members and people can’t even sacrifice non-necessities for others and it just makes me so mad.”
What long term consequences, if any, do you think will come from these requirements after the pandemic is over?
Kimberley, 24
“I think there will definitely be long term consequences. This is setting a scary precedent of what the government could do to limit the rights of people. The example that I think is the worst is the Ohio primary election. The day before the election, the health director closed all election facilities in order to delay the election since the governor did not have the power to delay the election. Now Ohio will have no in person voting for this primary. That’s scary to think what precedent this will set. This opens the door for more government power.”
Allison, 20
“I think the long-term consequences will be two-fold. In the case where there is another global pandemic or disaster of the same magnitude, people will be more willing to comply because they will have seen what can happen if they do not take urgent measures quickly. However, if the government asks for surrender of rights in a situation not deemed as threatening as COVID-19, people will resist and assert their civil liberties more because they have a benchmark of how far the government will push and overreach.”
Mia, 22
“I think that these precautions do set a bad precedent in terms of civil liberties but we are in between a rock and a hard place with this virus but I don’t think it is worth having thousands more people die just to argue about civil liberties. Of course, I am worried about the future of civil liberties and the government taking away our freedoms for much lesser things than this. but this virus isn’t a lesser thing and it would be wholly irresponsible had the government not acted in the way that it did. I also think that saving all human lives should be the top priority of the strategy to beat this. We will fix the economy once this over, thanks to the President we have in charge. But we will never be able to bring back the people who died and people don’t need to die in mass numbers because the government didn’t act on the experts advice.”
These ladies are just a small sample of Americans across the country who have found themselves questioning where they stand on this issue. All of us want a healthy future for this country with a strong economy and civil liberties still in place, the question is how much we each think we are willing to risk to get to that place. Wherever we each stand on this issue though it is more important than ever that all of us remain united in the face of the unknown and uncharted.
Stormi R
CABINET
