alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0043.html[8/29/2011 2:06:35 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 23, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeabe1

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0043

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Jodi Metzger

Address:

WV,

General Comment

I am opposed to the illegality of the new guidelines related to the Obama administration’s

implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Under the guidelines

released on August 1, 2011 by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), most health

insurance plans in the United States - including those offered by private employers - must provide full

access to birth control drugs, as well as abortion-inducing drugs. Numerous medical professional in

the pro-life and medical communities believe that such drugs as "Ella," and the "morning after pill"

and similar drugs have been shown to harm women, and actually kill the developing baby by starving

it of nutrients.

This is a concern because as a result of the HRSA guidelines, employers who have a pro-life,

religious, or other conscientious objection to facilitating the use of birth control drugs or abortioninducing drugs are now required to provide the very drugs that they believe result in the death of a

human being. According to the their conscience, this would be murder and sinful.

Now that employers will be required to pay for these drugs, the religious and conscientious rights of

employers are being trampled by these Guidelines and the narrow religious exemption. Numerous

religious organizations will now have no choice but to either violate their religious and conscientious

objections, or drop their health insurance coverage for their employees, leading to great hardship for

millions of employees and their families around the nation.

This religious exemption is illegally narrow because the proposed religious exemption violates the

Religious Freedom Restoration Act. HHS must draft a new religious exemption - one which protects

the religious freedom rights of all employers - in order to avoid legal challenges and ultimately defeat

for this illegally narrow proposed religious exemption. Also, the proposed religious exemption does

not protect ordinary employers who have sincerely he
From: Rebecca S Stutsman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Supporting preventive care services for women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:56:22 AM

Good morning--

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

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine in support of 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 will provide countless women better access to essential health care

services. Thank you.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61668-61669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19230]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY:  Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign 
Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons 
that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and 
Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one 
or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are 
blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in 
transactions with them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant 
Director for Compliance, tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On August 31, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests 
in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are 
blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 61669]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07SE23.011

    Authorities: E.O. 13687, 80 FR 819, 3 CFR, 2015 Comp., p. 259.

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Andrea M. Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2023-19230 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
From: Jolene Crowell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:47:58 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,

Jolene Crowell

2829 Lindale Avenue

Dayton

OH, OH 45414
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 (0.97 MB)
 
 Grand Slam Wing AEW 379TH AEW 379TH al udeid al Udeid Air Base Sothwest Asia AF.MIL Public Affairs Department of Defense Operation Inherent Resolve Centcom 379th Air Expeditionary Wing Qatar AIR FORCE
 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
From: Kathryn Robertson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Womeh"s Health Care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:14:30 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 60

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Science in the 
                     One Hundred Seventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2001

Mr. Boehlert submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Science in the 
                     One Hundred Seventh Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Science (hereafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the expenses of 
all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 
not more than $12,254,301.50 for the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $6,000,079.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2001, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2002; and
            (2) not more than $6,254,222.50 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2002, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2003.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
No. 641, Misc.

#### Gilbert *v.*Boles, Warden.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Benjamin E. Valentine, Appellant.

*People*v. *Valentine,*147 App. Div. 31, affirmed.

(Argued March 27, 1912;

decided April 12, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 11, 1911, affirming a judgment rendered at a Trial Term upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of forgery in the first degree.

*Ernest Hall*and *Henry P. Keith*for appellant.

*Charles N. Wysong, District Attorney (.Howard 8. Cans*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur; Cullen, Ch. J., Cray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
From: suzanne sen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Re: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:54:03 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 women better access to 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. A woman's access to

health care should not be restricted because of the company she works for. She

can not be expected to give up her job, for example, at hospital A which restricts

her health care choices, in order to work somewhere else--in this day of slim job

prospects, it might not be possible for her to find another position.

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

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal

exemption provisions.

Thank you!
From: Patty Palmquist

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:16:11 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,

Patty Palmquist
Lillburn, Georgia
From: Jessica Tomkovick

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No religious exemption for health coverage

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:09:40 PM

Please 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.

People who are opposed to birth control are simply wrong. Preventing unintended

pregnancies is in everyone's best interest. Also, many women take birth control pills for a

variety of non-contraceptive reasons. It is none of an employer's business what personal

medical decisions a woman makes.
From: aliza leventhal

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Refusal is not an employer"s right!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:02:32 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.

Sincerely,

Aliza Allen Leventhal
From: Eugene Johnson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:30:10 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

Re: Amendments to the interim final regulations implementing the rules for group

health plans and health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets

under provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act regarding

preventive health services

Dear [MOC],

I am outraged that we, the people, have once again been steamrolled by the Obama

administration and Planned Parenthood. Our right to give input on rules promulgated

by the government has been set aside and our religious freedoms have been thrown

under the bus.

We will be required to pay for other people's contraception through our insurance

premiums, and Catholic institutions and employers will be required to provide and

participate in insurance programs that include abortifacient birth control.

As Planned Parenthood "applauds the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) decision requiring new insurance plans to fully cover FDA-approved

contraceptive methods without co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs," those who

oppose paying for abortifacient birth control are left without even a forum to object.

That is why I turn to you today.

The Obama administration, through its various departments, unilaterally set aside

the required period for public comments and implemented the requirements as of

the date of publication in the Federal RegisterAugust 3, 2011.

The reason given for setting aside statutory provision for public comment? "The

Departments have determined that such a delay in implementation of the statutory

requirement that women receive vital preventive services without cost-sharing would

be contrary to the public interest because it could result in adverse health

consequences that may not otherwise have occurred."

This reasoning is ridiculous and the regulations are an affront to my religious

liberties.

As a member of your constituency, I ask you to please take any and all steps

available to rectify this situation, and notify me of the steps that are being taken to

right this horrible wrong.

Sincerely,

Eugene Johnson

Stafford, Virginia
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:49:35 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,

bobby gray

Coward, SC 29530