alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Susan Abing

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 3:59:38 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Susan Abing
Mondovi, Wisconsin
**EXHIBIT21.1**CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIESSubsidiaries of the Company       STATE OF INCORPORATION     The Concord Telephone Company North CarolinaCT Wireless Cable, Inc. North CarolinaWavetel, L.L.C. DelawareWebServe, Inc. North CarolinaWireless One of North Carolina, L.L.C. North CarolinaCTC Long Distance Services, LLC North CarolinaCT Cellular, Inc. North CarolinaCTC Exchange Services, Inc. North CarolinaCTC Internet Services, Inc. North CarolinaCT Services, Inc. North CarolinaCTC Employment Services, LLC North CarolinaProgress Place Realty Holding Company, LLC North CarolinaCT Global, LLC North CarolinaWavetel TN, L.L.C. DelawareCarolina Personal Communications, Inc. North CarolinaCTC Video Services, LLC North Carolina
From: Tara E. Showalter

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:49:09 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Tara E. Showalter
Hilton Head, South Carolina
From: David Nystrom

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 5:51:04 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

David Nystrom
Muenster, Texas
```

[107th Congress Public Law 181]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ181.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 583]]

Public Law 107-181
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that the parsonage 
     allowance exclusion is limited to the fair rental value of the 
            property. <<NOTE: May 20, 2002 -  [H.R. 4156]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Clergy Housing Allowance 
Clarification Act of 2002. 26 USC 1 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clergy Housing Allowance 
Clarification Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PARSONAGE ALLOWANCE EXCLUSION.

    (a) In General.--Section 107 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 <<NOTE: 26 USC 107.>>  is amended by inserting before the period at 
the end of paragraph (2) ``and to the extent such allowance does not 
exceed the fair rental value of the home, including furnishings and 
appurtenances such as a garage, plus the cost of utilities''.

    (b) Effective Date.-- <<NOTE: Applicability. 26 USC 107 note.>> 
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
            (2) Returns positions.--The amendment made by this section 
        also shall apply to any taxable year beginning before January 1, 
        2002, for which the taxpayer--
                    (A) on a return filed before April 17, 2002, limited 
                the exclusion under section 107 of the Internal Revenue 
                Code of 1986 as provided in such amendment, or
                    (B) filed a return after April 16, 2002.
            (3) Other years before 2002.--Except as provided in 
        paragraph (2), notwithstanding any prior regulation, revenue 
        ruling, or other guidance issued by the Internal Revenue 
        Service, no person shall be subject to the limitations added to 
        section 107 of such Code by this Act for any taxable year 
        beginning before January 1, 2002.

    Approved May 20, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4156:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Apr. 16, considered and passed House.
            May 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Pre-Flight Checklist

o Make sure you are using genuine parts and that all parts are in mint condition

o Ensure the remote controller, intelligent Flight Battery, and mobile device are fully charge

o Ensure that there is no foreign object stuck to the camera lens, the micro-SD card has been 

inserted into the camera, and gimbal can rotate freely before powering it on.

o Ensure the propellers are securely mounted onto the motors, and the motors can start and 

function normal.

o Make sure propellers are not chipped or damaged

o Check all electrical wiring for security

o Follow the on screen instructions to calibrate the compass

o Ensure the DJI pilot app and aircraft firmware have been upgraded to the last version

o Make sure your flight area is outside the No-Fly Zones and flight conditions are suitable for 

flying the Aircraft

o Make sure wind velocity is less than 15 MPH

o Before starting DJI Phantom make sure you are in an open area clear of trees, power lines or 

any obstacles. 

o Make sure you located at least 5 Miles from an airport unless received authorization from an 

authorized personnel. 

o Make sure any by standby personal are at least 150 feet from DJI Phantom at all times when 

in operation. 

o Set up cones notify people of DJI operations in three distinct locations
Post flight

o Turn Off UAS

o Disconnect batter from UAS

o Set Radio control transmitter power switch to off

o Perform general visual inspection of UAS

Loss of Communication

o In the event of loss of communication with the UAS utilized the return home feature.
From: Peter Wingert

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the atheistic Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:09:07 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true

conscience protection for those committed to preserving life. Health

care plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious

convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in a

health care system. Requiring such a dictatorial demand threatens

universal access to health care, religious freedom, and the general

peace of a free society.

I expect the "Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules"

will provide true conscience protection for those committed to

preserving life. Nothing less will be acceptable and tolerated.

Let us work together to insure true freedoms of life, liberty and

pursuit of happiness as envisioned by our Founding Father will continue

as long as our Great Nations exists.

Best regards,

Peter Wingert
From: Rene Yoder

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA

Subject: Age 26 change

Date: Thursday, July 01, 2010 4:41:26 PM

Does this requirement apply to retiree health plans?

Dependent Coverage of Children Who Have Not Attained Age 26

The Affordable Care Act requires plans and issuers that offer dependent coverage to make

the coverage available until a child reaches the age of 26. Both married and unmarried

children qualify for this coverage. This rule applies to all plans in the individual market and

to new employer plans. It also applies to existing employer plans unless the adult child has

another offer of employer-based coverage (such as through his or her job). Beginning in

2014, children up to age 26 can stay on their parent’s employer plan even if they have

another offer of coverage through an employer.

Regulation (PDF | 324 KB). The public can comment on the interim final rules via

www.regulations.gov. Comments are due on or before August 9, 2010.

Fact sheet

FAQs

René S. Yoder, SPHR

HR Services

New Mexico State University

Ph: 575-646-2047

Fx: 575-646-2806

ATTENTION:

This message and all its attachments may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and

PRIVILEGED. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use,

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the

sender by reply e-mail and delete the message immediately.
SCAD-11-0000162
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs. EARLE A. PARTINGTON, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-079-8913)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura,

in place of Acoba, J., recused) Upon consideration of Respondent Earle A. Partington’s February 9, 2012 motion for reconsideration of the February 8, 2012 order of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai# i denying Respondent Partington reinstatement to the practice of law, Respondent Partington’s January 31, 2012 affidavit and the record, it appears that Respondent Partington has thus far failed to aver that he complied with the Order of Suspension during the full period of the suspension, as required by Rule 2.17(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH) and, consequently, has not met the requirements for reinstatement. Therefore, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000162 16-FEB-2012 08:26 AMIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Partington’s

motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, in accordance with RSCH Rule 2.17(a), that Respondent Partington may not resume the practice of law until reinstated by order of this court. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 16, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Craig H. Nakamura

2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1026 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1026

 To designate the United States Post Office located at 60 Third Avenue 
 in Long Branch, New Jersey, as the ``Pat King Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2001

Mr. Torricelli introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States Post Office located at 60 Third Avenue 
 in Long Branch, New Jersey, as the ``Pat King Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PAT KING POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    The United States Post Office located at 60 Third Avenue in Long 
Branch, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ``Pat King 
Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office referred 
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Pat King Post 
Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 582.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to enable prospective purchasers to compare differences in auto insurance costs for the various makes and models of passenger motor vehicles, based upon differences in damage susceptibility and crashworthiness, and to realize any savings in collision insurance resulting from differences in damageability, and any savings in medical payment insurance resulting from differences in crashworthiness.
From: Jane Larrington

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:47:24 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Jane Larrington

7648 Lansing Drive

Lemon Grove, CA 91945
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.23 MB)
 
 Royal Danish Army trainer COALITION isil british building partner capacity cjtf 4 RIFLES ASSAULT isf iraqi Operation Inherent Resolve Centcom
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Lorenzo Matrusciello, Appellant, *v.*Milliken Brothers, Incorporated, Respondent.

*Matrusciello*v. *Milliken Brothers, Inc.,*141 App. Div. 769, affirmed.

(Argued January 14, 1913;

decided January 28, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 12, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*Thomas J. O’Neill*and *L. F. Fish*for appellant.

*F. Clyde Sherwood*and *Amos H. Stephens*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.