basquebromance
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2015
- 109,396
- 27,066
- 2,220
- Banned
- #1
If it were being sold to Republicans, the media would be outraged. Of course, most journalists in the establishment media won't even cover this story.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it were being sold to Republicans, the media would be outraged. Of course, most journalists in the establishment media won't even cover this story.
Politicizing an agenda is legalI am guessing this is illegal or something?
Seems like Democrats and liberals are OK with violating hippa, doesn't it?I am guessing this is illegal or something?
Hmmmm I wonder if its the same group that harangues you for insurance to cover your auto repairs???This is so sleazy, not to mention an illegal violation of HIPAA law. Just what I'd expect from Newsom.
Per reporting via the Los Angeles Daily News, DNC darling and 2024 presidential hopeful Gov. Gavin Newsom has passed Californians’ vax status to an outfit called Street Level Strategy, apparently for the purpose of prodding “vaccine-hesitant” residents into getting vaxxed and haranguing the already-vaxxed to get boosted.
One L.A. resident quoted in the report said, “I’m being stalked by the state of California. I just got a call from a guy who told me he has my file and he sees I got the Pfizer vaccine, but not a booster.”
California taxpayers are footing the bill for Street Level Strategy’s important “equity” work that consists of contacting California residents unsolicited and harassing them to get their mRNA injections to the tune of $12.7 million — awarded, unsurprisingly, through a no-bid contract under the state’s March 4, 2020, COVID-19 emergency declaration.
If all of this sounds vaguely illegal and definitely unethical, your instincts are correct. Per the CDC, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) “is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge.” The spirit of the law, and likely the letter as well, has clearly been violated here.