A news article in The Miami Herald discusses a key policy issue related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper describes the move by lawmakers to fast-track a proposal that seeks to provide immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits to some businesses that comply with the public health guidelines (Sexton, 2021). It is important to highlight that Miami also seeks to protect churches and schools from similar lawsuits citing the need to boost the economy (Ash, 2021). This paper aims to examine the policy issue discussed in the article by Sexton (2021), paying attention to the neutrality of the piece and the means by which the policy can be influenced.
In summary, the news article reports that the Republican-led parliament seeks to fast-track a proposal that intends to protect businesses from COVID-related lawsuits. The criterial, Sexton (2021) notes, is that these businesses have “substantially” observed the guidelines of public health. The author also mentions the fact that neither the Senate measure (SB72) nor the House bill (HB 7) has expressed the intention to protect healthcare institutions. This is a point that has been noted by many, and the author reports that Jeff Brandes claims that the healthcare providers are not being ignored. The St. Petersburg Republican claims that the legislature will work towards providing the medical staff with protection, but it will take more time.
After mentioning the lack of protection for healthcare workers, the article focuses majorly on the controversies surrounding the decision and continues to cite opinions from key lobbyists and individuals involved in the debate. It is only towards the end that the author changes focus again to businesses and sheds some light on the issue of compliance as it is the main criteria for protection. Business groups have been criticized for pushing the lawsuit limits. In essence, the news article highlights help explain why the decision is a controversial one.
The policy issue affects me as an ordinary citizen because it removed the protection from the businesses and their negligence, which may mean greater exposure to the pandemic without the businesses being held liable. Sexton (2021) uses in quotes the word “substantially” to highlight the vagueness and the loose manner in which the immunity will be provided. It can be opined that this word should be replaced with “completely” or “fully” to indicate that the protection criteria is that a business must adhere to all public health guidelines. Essentially, the public health guidelines should protect the masses from exposure meaning businesses would not be responsible for more COVID-19 cases. If businesses are being sued, it means that they are contributing to the spread of COVID-19, and immunity affects me as a Miami resident as I cannot hold responsible a firm whose actions result in me getting infected with the virus. With the businesses no longer having to worry about being sued for negligence, they are likely to become more careless.
However, it is also important to acknowledge that boosting the economy will have a positive impact on the Miami residents. The reason why businesses may not be operating to full capacity is that they fear the outcomes of the lawsuits. Court proceedings could be costly for the firms that are already ailing due to the pandemic. Eliminating this worry means trade can resume, and people can continue being employed. While individuals should worry about the virus, they need to also be concerned about the implications for continued economic lockdown.
The article can hardly be considered neutral due to the tone and, specifically, the partisan discussion of the failure to protect the healthcare personnel similarly. The news article has a heading that hints at describing the proposal to offer immunity to business. However, the lengthy analysis of an off-the-topic subject means the author has some personal and partisan opinions regarding why medical facilities are exempted. The tone used seemingly express that the author feels that there is injustice done when businesses get immunity while the more important institutions do not.
To influence this policy in the future, I might need to gather adequate data to show that immunity for business could be a careless move that might result in a rise in new COVID-19 cases. To achieve this, close monitoring of the situation will be essential whereby all new cases resulting from negligence by businesses are recorded. Additionally, a close examination of how businesses adhere to the public health guidelines after the passage of the bill will help explain that such a move results in laxity as firms no longer have to fear the consequences of their negligence. This is because my position is that the legislation puts people at great risk of exposure. To influence the policy, I would argue that there needs to be a requirement for absolute compliance for companies to get immunity from lawsuits. Any errors and mishaps should be considered acts of negligence, and the businesses should be held liable. Without such a requirement, the public faces a greater danger of new infections.
References
Ash, J. (2021). Bills passed to protect businesses, churches, and schools from COVID-related suits. The Florida Bar. Web.
Sexton, C. (2021). Florida Legislature has bill that would protect some businesses from COVID suits. The Miami Herald. Web.