Image 01 Image 03

HHS Sec. Becerra: ‘Absolutely the Government’s Business’ to Know Your COVID Vaccine Status

HHS Sec. Becerra: ‘Absolutely the Government’s Business’ to Know Your COVID Vaccine Status

COVID adviser Jeff Zients agreed: “As the president said, we will do this by going community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, person by person.”

President Joe Biden’s minions fully support his idea of going door-to-door and literally asking you for your vaccine paper proving you had the vaccine.

NEWS FLASH: My medical history is no one’s business except for me or people I approve of on any documents I sign. Absolutely no one and I sure as heck would not put “government” on any form. I will raise hell if any of my doctors tell anyone not on the permission slip anything about our visits or medical records.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told CNN Brianna Keilar the government has the right to know if you had the COVID-19 vaccine.

From Grabien:

BECERRA: “Brianna, perhaps we should point out that the federal government has spent trillions of dollars to try to keep Americans alive during this pandemic. So it is absolutely the government’s business. It is taxpayers’ business if we have to continue to spend money to try to keep people from contracting Covid and helping reopen the economy. And so it is our business to try to make sure Americans can prosper, Americans can freely associate, and knocking on a door has never been against the law. You don’t have to answer, but we hope you do. Because if you haven’t been vaccinated, we can help dispel some of the rumors you’ve heard and hopefully get you vaccinated.”

Biden COVID adviser Jeff Zients said the same thing:

ZIENTS: “Every individual that we vaccinate is a step forward, and across the summer months we’ll vaccinate millions more individuals. As the president said, we will do this by going community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, person by person. By partnering with local leaders, governors, mayors, doctors, school administrators, employers, faith leaders and community organizers, leaders that people know and trust. One shot at the time, one person at the time.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



2smartforlibs | July 8, 2021 at 2:05 pm

In the US we had laws to prevent this. I don’t know what it’s called now.

Sorry, the government doesn’t need to know shyte about my health.

You guys remember when the left was losing its collective shit over hoe Trump was a dictator right?!?

Now would actually be a good time for these brain dead fucks to actually be losing what little they have of their minds. Democrats are absolutely determined to control every aspect of your life!

The very fact these fucking fucks aren’t freaking out tells us their original freak was nothing more than theatrical theatre.

Fuck these people!

    henrybowman in reply to mailman. | July 8, 2021 at 3:00 pm

    “Becerra: “We want to give people the sense that they have the freedom to choose.”
    Not the actual freedom, hell no! — just the vague, fuzzy feeling that they still have it.

“Every individual that we vaccinate is a step forward”… to what? Population control? We really do not know the long-term effects of this mass inoculation of the populace.

    randian in reply to alaskabob. | July 8, 2021 at 7:15 pm

    “We really do not know the long-term effects of this mass inoculation of the populace”

    Not only do we not know, CDC, HHS, and DoL are deliberately avoiding finding out.

Umm, no. The government has no business whatsoever breaching my medical privacy.

    alaskabob in reply to McGehee. | July 8, 2021 at 4:06 pm

    Don’t you literally sign your life away with the vaccine anyway? I seem to remember that with this type of vaccination, you are placed in a separate legal status versus those who choose to not knock on death’s doorstep?

    Since SOOO much money is in the USA budget, can’t that all in one statement apply to everything? The “Collective” owns you know.

The Friendly Grizzly | July 8, 2021 at 2:22 pm

Ahh, for simpler times, when someone like that would be punched in the nose.

Well then. That’s quite the change in perspective. It appears that HHS believes that the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on an issue grants dominion over the people who might be impacted by that issue.

Here I was believing that HIPPA required specific written consent from the individual for each instance of that medical data being disclosed. It’s nice to know that HHS takes their duties so seriously.

Presumably they will now go door to door to deal with diabetics, the obese and those with cholesterol issues to root around their pantry and refrigerator in search of unhealthy fatty cakes?

After all persistent ingestion of fatty cakes is contributing to the severity of those conditions and increasing the strain on our Nation’s taxpayers and the healthcare system.

On the note of knocking on doors; when trespassing signs are posted, it most certainly is unlawful to enter or remain on the posted property.

It’s almost as if the Biden administration and the teachers unions among other d/progressive entities have decided to purposefully undertake actions to prove the oddball conspiracy theories are true. Who knew that conducting the delusions of Alex Jones was a Biden campaign pledge?

    henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | July 8, 2021 at 8:17 pm

    “It appears that HHS believes that the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on an issue grants dominion over the people who might be impacted by that issue.”

    Beccera’s most recent job was California AG. Are you surprised?

    JHogan in reply to CommoChief. | July 8, 2021 at 8:27 pm

    Presumably they will now go door to door to deal with diabetics, the obese and those with cholesterol issues to root around their pantry and refrigerator in search of unhealthy fatty cakes?

    That part comes after the government completely socializes the health care system and starts trying to control costs. Because they’re running out of other people’s money.

      CommoChief in reply to JHogan. | July 8, 2021 at 8:43 pm


      Why not now? People with obesity, diabetes, heart problems are all at high risk from Rona.

      No offense to the CNN anchor but from just the photo she might not have an ideal body mass index.

Have them go door-to-door checking immigration status first.

henrybowman | July 8, 2021 at 2:34 pm

” Americans can freely associate, and knocking on a door has never been against the law. You don’t have to answer, but we hope you do.”

Trespass has always been against the law. And let’s talk about HIPAA.
Our current president endorses shooting through the door at perceived threats.
You’re going to need a lot more Timmys.

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | July 9, 2021 at 12:43 am

    Walking directly from the street to someone’s front door and knocking on it is not trespass. There’s an implied license to do that, which can only be revoked by the owner explicitly telling you so.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | July 9, 2021 at 3:29 am

      Or the owner having a chain-link fence with a sign on it telling you not to, backed up by dogs who agree.
      Or the walk from the street being 3/4 mile.
      Or, legally, just the posted sign alone.
      There’s lots of ways for people who cherish privacy to keep their privacy.

SeiteiSouther | July 8, 2021 at 2:38 pm

Not just no, HELL NO, to whether the gov’t needs to know my status. The whole door to door thing, if they actually do it, I anticipate will give rise to legal suits.

Defend us. Keep the infrastructure from crumbling. Other than that, just leave us alone.

What the heck!?! Even in a Pharmacy, you have stand 10 feet away for “privacy”. Got HIPPA?

    alohahola in reply to Romey. | July 8, 2021 at 5:35 pm

    What? They ask you OUT LOUD for your name and birthdate at the pharmacy.

    They really get annoyed at me when I respond, “I do not wish to say my information out loud. Please see my name and birthdate on this piece of paper.”

      txvet2 in reply to alohahola. | July 8, 2021 at 9:51 pm

      They ask for that at the AF pharmacy, too, right after they scan the back of your ID card, which presumably has exactly that info.

        healthguyfsu in reply to txvet2. | July 8, 2021 at 11:58 pm

        To be clear, they are trying to verify that you can at least recite what is on your ID (as a basic check of validity). Also, neither your name or your birth date are protected medical information…carry on with the rest though!

          CommoChief in reply to healthguyfsu. | July 9, 2021 at 12:05 pm

          Though they are PPI, protected personal information.

          DaveGinOly in reply to healthguyfsu. | July 9, 2021 at 3:28 pm

          Just because there isn’t a statute protecting certain personal information doesn’t mean that you don’t have a right to privacy in it. Some con operators are adept and standing where they can hear people recite personal info and memorizing it immediately for ID theft to be committed later. Don’t allow anyone except someone with a valid reason to even hear your personal info.

        Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | July 9, 2021 at 12:45 am

        That’s exactly what they’re checking, to make sure you’re who you say you are.

      henrybowman in reply to alohahola. | July 9, 2021 at 3:38 am

      “They really get annoyed at me when I respond, “I do not wish to say my information out loud. Please see my name and birthdate on this piece of paper.””

      Was on an out of state trip in 2002, got a painful ear infection, had to use a walk-in clinic. Waiting room was crammed, waiting times through the roof, staff had zero etiquette. Didn’t even bother to call people to the counter, just shouted out a name and a question to the entire waiting room and waited for a shouted response.

      Person behind the counter yelled out my name and asked me what I was there for. I yelled back, “SARS.” Patient load in waiting room decreased miraculously, waiting time became very sustainable.

If some min-wage stooge hired by the gov’t (like the Obamacare coordinators or census takers) shows up and says “our records indicate you have not been vaccinated” or the like, there will be trouble. Hell there will be trouble even if they simply ask about my private health record. GFY (My body, my choice) seems like an appropriate response.

Give people the “sense” they have the freedom…..? Better stay in Democrat neighborhoods. They wouldn’t know any better.

They know you’re vaccinated from the insurance card,that you offered in exchange for your free vaccination.

    henrybowman in reply to rhhardin. | July 8, 2021 at 4:10 pm

    Codswallop. Social Security doesn’t know you’re alive if you’re standing in front of them.

      DaveGinOly in reply to henrybowman. | July 9, 2021 at 3:32 pm

      I’ve always found it curious that when a person has been mistakenly declared dead, a Social Security card isn’t sufficient proof of identity in order for the person to successfully assert that he is alive, but SS number alone is sufficient for an imposter to successfully assert that he is someone (alive) other than himself.

    malclave in reply to rhhardin. | July 8, 2021 at 5:33 pm

    Sounds like a HIPAA violation on behalf of the insurance company if that’s true.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | July 8, 2021 at 4:06 pm

Come on Barcanera, BitchyNora, or whatever the Demented Dork calls you…. Send your Nazi minions.

“Short answer: Nunya.”


I’d say ‘see you in court’. But I no longer have any confidence in the courts.

nordic_prince | July 8, 2021 at 8:24 pm

Can’t believe they’re doubling down on stupid.

On second thought, their doubling down on stupid is eminently believable.

Oh boy, oh boy!!! I’m so excited to know they are trying to give me as much freedom as they feel I can have!!! Death to tyrants!!

Antifundamentalist | July 8, 2021 at 8:38 pm

The implication is that if we all don’t fall in line, the will MAKE us fall in line, like parents of an errant teenager. I don’t think that is going to go the way they seem to think it will.

If a person loses their right to privacy because the government and taxpayer paid for the vaccine, maybe the next step would be vax maps to alert concerned neighbors.

Not long ago, a newspaper in NY, using public information, posted “gun maps” which showed the locations of all the registered guns in NY to alert concerned neighbors— and home burglars.

    henrybowman in reply to jolanthe. | July 9, 2021 at 3:42 am

    What these yahoos never seem to realize is that the publication of a “gun map” is semantically equivalent to the publication of an “ain’t got a gun map.” Maybe the burglars are after your gun, but then again, maybe they’re after your valuables and your daughters.

Coming in late to this whole thing.

1. Biden did not say or imply in any way that the government had or would have a list of unvaccinated people. He certainly did not say or imply in any way that federal agents would come to your door and force you to vaccinate.

All he said was that the vaccination effort would have to reach those who are not being reached by the ad campaigns, so there would be neighborhood initiatives using more direct methods to reach people, including good-old-fashioned door-knocking to bring the good word information to those who have evidently not got it any other way. There was no implication that the door-knockers would know who is vaccinated.

2. Becerra did not say that it’s the government’s business to know who has been vaccinated. He certainly didn’t say that the government has “the right to know”. You will not find anywhere in this article, or in any article, a quote from him that says that.

The interviewer asked how it’s the government’s business to know who has or hasn’t been vaccinated, but he either didn’t understand what she was asking, or pretended not to understand it. My guess is he actually didn’t understand it, because neither he nor anyone in the government had ever suggested they should know that, and had no idea people were running with the idea that they were planning to develop such information.

What he said was that it’s the government’s business to try to persuade people to get vaccinated. And by almost anyone’s standards it is. You can certainly paraphrase James Madison and say that you cannot undertake to lay your finger on that article of the constitution which made fighting epidemics any business of the federal government, but nobody in politics outside the LIbertarian Party agrees with that.

3. Some people seem to have some strange ideas about what HIPAA (not HIPPA) does. If you have been vaccinated, it limits whom the clinic where it was done can tell about it without your consent. But anyone else who happens to know about it (e.g. because you told them) is free to tell anyone. And if you’re not vaccinated, that information is certainly not protected. Supposing the government somehow got hold of a list of vaccinated people, there is no legal reason why it could not produce partial lists of unvaccinated people and give them to door-knockers. It just couldn’t say “These are all the unvaccinated people on that block”, which means anyone not on the list is vaccinated.

(One way in which the government could create such a list would be if people apply to it for a certificate that they’ve been vaccinated, thus volunteering this information to the government, which would be free to use it any way it likes.)

4. Trespassing. The existence of a front door accessible from the street creates an implied license for anyone to walk up to it, knock on it, and ask to speak with the occupants. “No trespassing” signs do not revoke that license.

See US v Carloss: As an initial matter, just the presence of a “No Trespassing” sign is not alone sufficient to convey to an objective officer, or member of the public, that he cannot go to the front door and knock. Such signs, by themselves, do not have the talismanic quality Carloss attributes to them. See Davis v. City of Milwaukee, No. 13–CV–982–JPS, 2015 WL 5010459, at *13 (E.D.Wis. Aug.21, 2015) (indicating, post-Jardines, that “signs stating ‘Private Property’ or ‘No Trespassing’ do not, by themselves, create an impenetrable privacy zone”); United States v. Jones, No. 4:13CR00011–003, 2013 WL 4678229, at *5 (W.D.Va. Aug.30, 2013) (stating, post-Jardines, that “No Trespassing” “signs do not, in and of themselves, create a right to privacy or automatically place an area under the Fourth Amendment’s protections”); see also City of Beatrice v. Meints, 289 Neb. 558, 856 N.W.2d 410, 421 (Neb.2014) (holding, post-Jardines, that a resident “could not reasonably expect that tacking a ‘no trespassing’ sign to a tree would prevent others from viewing or walking on his land”), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2388, 192 L.Ed.2d 166 (2015); Christensen, 2015 WL 2330185, at *6–*8 (Tenn.Crim.App.) (rejecting, post-Jardines, a bright-line rule that a “No Trespassing” sign revokes the implied license to approach a front door to conduct knock-and-talk). Carloss has not cited, nor can we find, any post-Jardines authority holding that a resident can revoke the implied license to approach his home and knock on the front door simply by posting a “No Trespassing” sign.

    CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 9, 2021 at 10:37 am


    Trespass; a close reading of the dissent by Judge Ebel along with the majority and concurring opinions doesn’t at all state that a No Trespassing sign is insufficient to prevent implied licence to door knock. On the contrary, all the opinions directly or indirectly note that the key factor is the language of the sign and it’s placement.

    Becerra’s comments: if you want to cut him slack that’s fine. Opinions vary. He is certainly capable of making a very clear and unambiguous statement that clarifies his comment by explicitly refuting that government will develop a database of who has or has not been vaccinated and that the expenditure of tax dollars in no way grants the government any dominion or powers not specified by statute. Until he does so it isn’t unreasonable to view his statement in a negative light.

      Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 9, 2021 at 11:11 am

      The language is “No Trespassing”. And that is not sufficient to revoke the implied license, because an ordinary person seeing it would not understand it to be doing that. An ordinary door-knocker, seeing the sign, would assume that it doesn’t apply to him, because he’s not trespassing; he’s exercising his implied license. He would understand the sign to mean merely that he shouldn’t go wandering about the grounds, snoop through windows, etc., but should proceed directly from the gate to the door and wait there.

        CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 9, 2021 at 11:27 am


        If a sign says no trespass and also states that implied licences to door knock are revoked then that seems to meet the demands at issue in providing notice to the ‘reasonable person’.

        A prominently placed sign or signs clearly communicating that proceeding into the curtilage of the property was forbidden/licence revoked would, IMO, bar entry.

      Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 9, 2021 at 11:13 am

      Becerra did exactly what you said he should. When he found out that people were running with this weird interpretation of his words, he explicitly said they were not going to do that.

        CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 9, 2021 at 11:37 am

        Can you tell me where to find that walk back? I haven’t been able to find it, not saying he didn’t, just that I can’t find it.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 9, 2021 at 3:43 pm

    “…if you’re not vaccinated, that information is certainly not protected…”

    The information isn’t protected (by statute), but that is not the same thing as not having a privacy interest in the information. The very fact that HIPAA exists is proof Congress believes we have a right to privacy in our health status/medical history. Knowing that someone has been vaccinated is part of a person’s medical history to which we have a right to privacy (yes, restricted by law to control the only people who have a need to know your medical history, medical providers, because you don’t have a choice about telling them or not telling them what you need from medical service providers – if you tell friends, family, and strangers, you have elected to surrender your privacy). But so also is the fact that you have not received a medical treatment, medicine, or vaccine. This information still relates to your state of health and your medical history (“healthy” is a medical state or condition), and it is therefore also health/medical information, in which you have a privacy interest, even if it’s not protected by HIPAA.

The_Mew_Cat | July 9, 2021 at 4:09 am

The HHS has no reliable way of knowing who was vaccinated and who wasn’t. All databases are fragmentary and incomplete. Some people were vaccinated by the Federal Government, others by the State they live in, others by the State they work in, others by pharmacies, others by their employers, others by their doctor.

    nordic_prince in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | July 9, 2021 at 9:18 am

    Still doesn’t make it any of their business.

    Once again, the Ds are acting like their problem is merely a “messaging” problem and if they could just get it right, the peasants would see the light… when in fact their problem is the message itself. Those who want the shot have already gotten it, and those who haven’t gotten the shot are saying STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME AND LEAVE ME ALONE.

What happened to all those that support abortion My Body My Choice!!!!!
The statement is “I don’t have to answer the door” as My choice when the government comes knocking—BUT they still don’t get the numbers wanted because the government has spend trillions $$$ to “protect me”– will the next step be to break down the door and behave like “no-knock warrant” behavior that makes the news….I think it certainly will be!!! Those of us that don’t think the government has the right to use force to take MY freedom—I must be a critical/deadly threat to those that demand me to comply. with police orders.

How can someone that swore an oath to the Constitution not know that our rights and freedoms don’t come from Government?

So, the HIPPA Laws that required me to get my wife’s and children’s permission to get their medical data don’t apply to “Progressive” politicians? Who would have thought such a thing?
More rules for thee, but not for me!

Even if the government has a right to know who has and who hasn’t been vaccinated, it’s quite a jump to assume that means they also have the authority to treat citizens who fall into one group or the other differently from each other. But doubtless. they have already made that leap in their minds, and “right to know” is just part of the process that got them to “right to take action based on the knowledge.”