alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (2.71 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
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Meeting #1

November 13 and 14, 2013

Preliminary Agenda

U.S. Access Board Conference Room

1331 F Street, N.W., suite 800

Washington, DC 20004

Wednesday, November 13 (10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.)

1. Welcome

2. Overview of Committee Charter (Purpose) and Rulemaking Process

3. Federal Advisory Committee Act Overview

4. Review and Approval of Protocols

5. Potential New Membership – Committee Vote

6. Establish Future Meeting Dates

7. Review of Current Rail Guidelines and Establish Committee Priorities

8. Public Comment Period

Thursday, November 14 (9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.)

1. Committee Work

2. Administration

3. New Business

4. Public Comment Period

5. Adjourn

Note: Lunch will be on your own at a time each day favorable to the Committee work.
From: Harlene & Ernie

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: "Religious Refusal" Exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:53:09 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.

SPAMfighter has removed 807 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC? Try free scan!
From: guginosrr@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:51:01 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

frank gugino sr

Buffalo, NY 14224
No. 402, Misc.

#### Tuthill *v.*United States.

*Winston S. Howard*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Julia P. Cooper*for the United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 260, Misc.

#### Ward *v.*Texas.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
From: Jost, Jean

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health

Date: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:12:18 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
From: Carrie Hartless

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Health Services

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:18:06 AM

To whom it may concern in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

I believe health care reform should expand access to basic health care for all, not

undermine that goal. The enormous effect of this mandate would be detrimental to

many care facilities. Catholic institutions could only continue to operate, in accord

with teaching on life and procreation, if they stopped hiring and serving nonCatholics. That would be a disservice to the general population. It seems like you

are trying to pressure Catholic institutions and other non-religious, pro-life

institutions to cease providing health care, education, and charitable services to the

general public.

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Healthcare plans should not be

forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in

order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable

demand threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of

conscience.

-- 

Blessed are we, O Israel;

 for what pleases God is known to us!

--Baruch 4:4

Please revise this language and change this mandate. I do not support it.

Thank you,

Carrie Hartless
Exhibit 23
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Ameritech Corporation

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our reports dated January 13, 1997
included (or incorporated by reference) in this Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1996, into Ameritech Corporation's
previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 33-26366, 2-
97037, 33-30593, 33-32705, 33-34006, 33-36790, 33-47608, 33-
49036, 33-51771, 33-51773, 33-00897 and 33-02591.



                                        Arthur Andersen LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 11, 1997
From: Phyllis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I support Access to preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:30:58 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (3.05 MB)
 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
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128676 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JOSEPH M. MAUER, Personal Representative Justices
 

for the Estate of KRISTIANA LEIGH MAUER, 

Deceased, JOSEPH M. MAUER, Individually, 

JOSEPH M. MAUER, as Next Friend of CARL 

MAUER, a minor, MINDE M. MAUER, and

CORY MAUER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 128676 

 COA: 250858 

Manistee CC: 02-010971-NI 

ROBERT WAYNE TOPPING,

Defendant,
 

and 

BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS 

OF MANISTEE COUNTY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 7, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of Middleton v County of Marquette (Docket No. 128677) is pending on appeal 

before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the 

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

d1221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2005 

Clerk
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1144

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 5, 2001

Referred to the Committee on Financial Services

AN ACT

To amend title III of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.) to reauthorize

the Federal Emergency Management Food and Shelter

Program, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1144 RFH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 Section 322 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

3 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11352) is amended to read as

4 follows:

5 ‘‘SEC. 322. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

6 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out

7 this title $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $160,000,000

8 for fiscal year 2003, and $170,000,000 for fiscal year

9 2004.’’.

10 SEC. 2. NAME CHANGE TO NOMINATING ORGANIZATION.

11 Section 301(b) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

12 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331(b)) is amended by strik13 ing paragraph (5) and inserting the following:

14 ‘‘(5) United Jewish Communities.’’.

15 SEC. 3. PARTICIPATION OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS ON

16 LOCAL BOARDS.

17 Section 316(a) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

18 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11346(a)) is amended by strik19 ing paragraph (6) and inserting the following:

20 ‘‘(6) guidelines requiring each local board to in21 clude in their membership not less than 1 homeless

22 individual, former homeless individual, homeless ad23 vocate, or recipient of food or shelter services, except

24 that such guidelines may waive such requirement for

25 any board unable to meet such requirement if the

26 board otherwise consults with homeless individuals,
3

S 1144 RFH

1 former homeless individuals, homeless advocates, or

2 recipients of food or shelter services.’’.

Passed the Senate August 3, 2001.

Attest: JERI THOMSON,

Secretary.
From: gregkarencarter@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:15:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Carter

San Diego, CA 92120
From: carriepage@musician.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carrie Page

Tempe, AZ 85282
From: gaile carr

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious refusal

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 5:51:04 PM

“religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by

an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions

even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health

providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even

though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Career DevelopmentEducation Work RelationshipEducational ChangeElementary Secondary EducationEmployment OpportunitiesEmployment PotentialEntrepreneurshipIntegrated CurriculumJob SkillsLanguage ArtsProgram DescriptionsRelevance (Education)School Business RelationshipStudent Educational Objectives

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: Nicholas Mantas

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:24:08 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Nicholas A. Mantas, Esq.