California Imposes Universal Abortion Coverage

Within the United States, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the department will withhold $200 million in Medicaid funding from California due to the states requirement of state insurance companies providing abortion insurance coverage. 

This act is illiberal because it forces insurance companies to provide abortion insurance. In a liberal society, if people needed abortion insurance, an insurance company would come into the economy to help that need. With imposing universal abortion coverage mandates on health insurance, the California government has taken the freedom from insurance companies on if they want to provide abortion insurance.

In any truly free society, abortion would be legal and anybody should be able to do it at their own risk. The state of California has a liberal mentality because it does not say somebody cannot have an abortion unlike other states. The irony of the liberal act of allowing abortions is the illiberal act of imposing health insurance companies to mandate universal abortion coverage. 

Why citizens of a free society need help

Within the United States right now, 20.6 million Americans are receiving some type of unemployment benefit. Cases are surging and the economy is slumping 23% of local businesses were closed December 1st. 41% of bars, 28% of restaurants and 32% of beauty shops were also shut down. This can all be attributed not to people running their business poorly but something outside of their control, COVID-19.

Because of this negative influence, people have no option but to suffer economically without many options out. This is where government comes into play, to make sure it's citizens are surviving! There have been reports of stimulus pack which is said to give support to Americans. But how? Congress is still discussing a relief package but the major parts of the package include $600 direct payment to individuals, $300 billion for businesses and $300 added each week to state unemployment benefits.    

While these will be very influential to keep the economy of the United States running, one of these "packages" is illiberal. If this package were to be liberal, the $300 added each week to state unemployment benefits would instead be going to the people instead of the government run programs. Within free society the citizen knows where better to spend the money than the official government itself. Because of this the $300 allotted to the government unemployment benefits should go to the citizens in a free society. 

Small businesses and unemployment during Covid-19

In 2019, The small Business administration (SBA) reported that 44% of the economic activity in the U.S. is contributed by small businesses. Two-thirds of jobs created in 2019 along with over 43% of the national GDP are the result of small business contribution. The national unemployment dropped by 0.1% from January 2018 to January 2019 according to FRED Economic Data and the SBA reported 1.8 million net new jobs created by small businesses. Companies employing fewer than 20 people we responsible for adding 1.2 million jobs. The phrase “small businesses are the back of the economy” seems like an understatement after listing the numbers, but now COVID 19 in 2020 may just cripple our economy for years to come. How much damage has the national economy and small businesses have sustained this year? How is it that in this free market economy we are forced to close the doors while the government sits back to see it collapse and not move a finger? 

SBA reported national unemployment at 14.7% as of April 2020 and the number has dropped to 6.7% in the same year. Nearly 100,000 establishments that were forced to temporarily shut down are now out of business according to Forbes. From April 2019 to April 2020, over 1 million small businesses were created and now about 10% of the 31.7 million are or have already shut down. Over 60 million American are employed by small businesses, and the loss of these companies have caused the unemployment numbers to skyrocket. The last time unemployment was at 6.7% was in February 2014. The Coronavirus has regressed the economic progress of 6 years in just a matter of months. The question is, what is the damage real damage and how long will it take for the economy to recover? 

While the unemployment numbers have dropped from the historic 14.7% in April 2020 to 6.7% today, the financial status of many Americans will take longer to recover. Large corporations dominate the market today on a much larger scale than before the pandemic started. Industries that were largely affected by the loss of income of many Americans such as hospitality, travel, and food will struggle to return to normal operation numbers. The price of rent has risen in every state as the housing crisis escalates, and renters get evicted after losing their jobs. This is not a depression, but this recession continues today and while states shutdowns businesses again to respond to the increase of infection numbers, more and more businesses shut down. The backbone of our economy has and continues to struggle to survive. How long will it take for small businesses to once again contribute to job creation by the millions every year? We just do not know. 

The federal government continues to play politics instead of passing policy to keep small businesses afloat while new shutdowns are set in place by multiple states across the nation. Covid-19 has not paralyzed economic growth, but it certainly has caused disincentives for investment by small business owners. Large food chains continue to operate, while small restaurants close their door. Local grocery stores limited by space fall while Walmart and Targets continue to be open. Amazon made record sales during shut down while small stores had no way to survive without customer interaction. It is clear who is winning during this pandemic, and it is certainly not the economy because Walmart and Amazon have no intentions of helping small businesses, and neither does our government representatives. While I am not inferring shutdowns are entirely responsible for the damage as they are meant to contain the infection, we are paying the price of an incompetent government that gloats when the market economy we live in succeeds and turns a blind eye when the same needs help to survive. It isn’t about complete government disassociation, instead of about excessive involvement with already existing minimal compensation.

The Supreme Court's Defence of Economic Freedom

    Throughout history, the Supreme Court has made numerous decisions and constitutional rulings which have changed the shape of the United States’ national and state economies. These decisions have covered things such as the contracts clause, regulation of private industry, minimum wage, work hours, and government takings. These decisions, and their effects have had a profound influence on the economic rights of Americans. Our Constitution provides several key components which have helped the court in legal battles involving the protection of economic rights for citizens. This is true for matters in which Americans act as both members of a firm marketing goods & services, or an individual selling their labor. Some of the court’s rulings have increased regulations on Americans, and some have greatly limited the State’s power, but ultimately, the Court’s doctrine in this area has proved to be an effective and indispensable factor in preserving American economic freedom.

    Every American has a right to natural resources, especially when they come in the form of a public good, like the water in a river, or just the use of the river itself. These types of things are public goods and are therefore nonexcludable. Many then believe that the public’s use of these goods should be protected by the State. In the 1870s’ the Mississippi River had become immensely polluted by slaughterhouses that were discarding pieces of dead animals into the river. There was a cholera outbreak in Louisiana and people were unable to utilize the river’s water without becoming sick. The Supreme Court ruled in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, that the Louisiana govt. was right to prohibit slaughterhouses upstream and centralize the industry downriver. Thus, the court worked to defend the freedom of the state’s citizens to enjoy this public good, while of course following the harm principle. In a 1908 case, Adair v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down Congress’ “Erdman Act.” This law prohibited “yellow-dog contracts” in railroads engaged in interstate commerce. What these did was prohibit railroad officials from denying employment to workers based on their membership in labor unions. The court’s decision here was to strike down the act. With this decision, the Supreme Court protected the freedom of contract for employees and employers. In the US, citizens have a right to sell their labor and provide jobs to who they please. The court protected this right and employers were once again permitted to exit a business relationship with individuals.

    Another significant decision in which the Supreme court advanced economic freedom for Americans was Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in 1992. An individual in South Carolina had purchased two expensive lots of land with the intent to construct homes on them. The state government shortly after, passed a law which prohibited this very action on the land in question. The man’s land was in effect, completely devalued. He could no longer do what he set out to do here and the lots were worthless to him, and his investment was destroyed. Legal action ensued against South Carolina and the case made it to the Supreme Court. They once again preserved economic liberty for Americans. They ruled that this was a violation of the “takings clause” of the 5^th Amendment. This has it that people’s property cannot be taken without just compensation. In this case, any justice could argue that a devaluation of an individual’s land does not mean the government has “taken” it. The decision though was that the state’s new law, having crashed the value of Lucas’ land, meant that they had performed a taking. Just compensation was inevitably provided to reimburse Lucas for the investment they had ruined. This is yet another example of how our country’s Supreme Court has, in most cases, actively defended economic freedom for Americans; hopefully they continue the practice.