alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Patricia Egsieker

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:06:40 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,

Patricia Egsieker
Happy Valley, Oregon
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1226 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1226

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2002

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To require the display of the POW/MIA flag at the World War II 
 memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans 
                               Memorial.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``POW/MIA Memorial Flag Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF POW/MIA FLAG AT WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL, KOREAN WAR 
              MEMORIAL, AND VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL.

    (a) Requirement for Display.--Subsection (d)(3) of section 902 of 
title 36, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The Korean War 
Veterans Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial'' and inserting 
``The World War II memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the 
Vietnam Veterans Memorial''.
    (b) Days for Display.--Subsection (c)(2) of that section is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
        subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
        redesignated, the following new subparagraph (A):
            ``(A) in the case of display at the World War II memorial, 
        Korean War Veterans Memorial, and Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
        (required by subsection (d)(3) of this section), any day on 
        which the United States flag is displayed;''.
    (c) Display on Existing Flagpole.--No element of the United States 
Government may construe the amendments made by this section as 
requiring the acquisition of erection of a new or additional flagpole 
for purposes of the display of the POW/MIA flag.

            Passed the Senate October 2, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                  JERI THOMSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
EXHIBIT 32

                          XVARIANT, INC.

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xvariant, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reed
L. Benson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
          of the Company.

     August 19, 2003               /s/ Reed L. Benson
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Reed L. Benson
                                   Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                                   Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 242,

October Term, 1961.

#### Glidden Company *v.*Zdanok et al.,

370 U. S. 530.

Motion of American Spice Trade Association et al. for leave to file brief, as *amici curiae,*granted. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.
From: Martha Gould

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: access to preventive care for women

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:15:37 PM

I never cease to be horrified that various religious and other groups try to impose their beliefs

on others. 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 exemption for "religious

employers."

AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services. Some, drive by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing government to make exemptions even larger. Religiously-run health providers

would be exempt from coverage requirements, even though they employ people of all faiths

and ideologies. Such larger exemptions would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work. I ask that you ensure women have access to quality preventive

care by accepting IOM's recommendations and reject the proposed religious refusal

exemption.

Martha Gould

1690 West 6th Street

Reno, NV 89503
From: Gabrielle Howitz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:34:11 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,

Gabrielle Howitz

1125 N. 25th St

Allentown, PA 18104
From: Judy Balsanek

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Re: Preventive Health care

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 8:33:37 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.

It was challenging for me when I worked for a religious healthcare organization in a special

program for outreach to pregnant teens and young mothers and could not have any contraception

information available for our patients. It would have created even more challenge for me if I as

an employee would have been denied quality preventitive healthcare as a female employed within

that religiously-run health provider system.

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.

J.Balsanek, MSW, ACSW, LCSW

Twin River/New Bern Branch, American Association of University Women
From: Micole Linehan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: accepting IOM’s recommendations and ensure women have access to preventive care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:38:19 PM

I agree with the American Association of University Women's (AAUW) position in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as it

pertains 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.

 Thank you for your time.
From: arwenundomielsl@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Coverage

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:40:03 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 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.
----

(2004/C 84 E/0029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2482/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Prevention against the risk of forest fires: Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92

Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (1), which made provision for the funding of measures to prevent against the risk of forest fires, expired on 31 December 2002. The fact that Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 acted as an incentive for regional and national fire prevention policies has been amply demonstrated over the past 10 years. During that period, the average area of forest damaged by each fire fell in the south of France, Spain and Portugal. Nevertheless, the fresh Commission proposal for a regulation (Forest Focus) and the new rural development regulation represent a renationalisation of policy on forest fires which entails the disappearance of a Community financial arrangement for prevention against the risks of forest fires such as that provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92. At the same time, this proposal does not accord with the arguments brought by the Court of Justice of the European Communities to the effect that policy on protection against forest fires is to be seen as a Community policy within the framework of environment policy which is to be financed by funds drawn from the EU budget.

The Council:

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the public deliberation which took place at the Council meeting on 6 November 2003 on the draft ‘Forest Focus’ Regulation and to the conclusions reached. At that time the Council approved the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at second reading on the proposal for a Regulation concerning monitoring of forest and environmental interactions in the Community. Consequently, and since the EP's amendments correspond to a compromise agreement reached by the Council, the Regulation is adopted in the form of the Council's Common Position thus amended.

The Regulation provides a multiannual framework covering initially a 6-year period from 2003 to 2008. It aims at adapting the scope of existing Council Regulations (EEC) No 3528/86 and (EEC) No 2158/92 to provide a flexible monitoring scheme to assess forest ecosystem conditions in a broader context. It also simplifies existing activities by regrouping elements of both Regulations under a single framework Regulation covering the protection and monitoring of forests.

----

(1)OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3.

----
From: Jill Lundgren

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject "religious refusal" exemptions for women"s preventative care insurance

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:25:46 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,

J. Lundgren
From: Bob Strong

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:13:23 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 the

health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal

access to health care and religious freedom of conscience.
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 (2.7 MB)
 
 C-17 Aircraft Aviation Transport
 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
```

Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report of Winmax Trading Group, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        o   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        o   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

May 29, 2003
By: /s/ Gerald E. Sklar
Gerald E. Sklar, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
and Principal Accounting Officer
```
From: jgrackin@optonline.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s preventive care and contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:35:36 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.

Yours truly

Janice A. Grackin, Ph.D.

76 Warren Avenue

Lake Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
From: Harriet Mantell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:18:06 AM

Please reject religious refusal exemptions so that Women who work for religious

institutions are not denied coverage for preventive care.
From: stefan_v_c@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:45:50 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I object to the mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private

health insurance with no co-pay to patients. It would be wrong to do so.

Thank you for doing the right thing.

Sincerely,

Stefan von Campe

Norfolk, VA 23507