alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

SEP 1 20H REC JA0 44 j-/0
PUBLICATION & REGUL A SION [As of: September 01, 2011
=GULATIONS ved:
BRANCH ONS Received: August 15, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce1b3c
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0097
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Lela M DeLay
Address:
P.O. Box 415
Milton, WA, 98354
Email: lmd656886@hotmail.com
Phone: 253-944-1268

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control a reality for all women who
use it,

It is past time.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000..._ 9/1/2011
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Gregory Scott Hermanski Attorney GeneraVCarson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A 4909)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6509

JOHN MCKINNEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director SCDC; TERRE K. MARSHALL, Deputy Director 

SCDC/Health; CECELIA REYNOLDS, Warden Lee Correctional Institution; 

APRIL CLARK, SCDC Medical Director; STOKES, Lee Correctional Institution 

RN; BURNETT, Lee Correctional Institution RN; BLAKE, Lee Correctional 

Institution RN; ANDERSON, Lee Correctional Institution RN; DR. NEVILLE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (8:21-cv-03683-CMC)

Submitted: September 25, 2023 Decided: October 5, 2023

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John McKinney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6509 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

John McKinney appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge and dismissing McKinney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. McKinney v. Stirling, No. 8:21-cv03683-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6509 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/05/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
From: Gayle Westerhuis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:26:25 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,

Gayle Westerhuis
Portland, Oregon
From: Shirley Biscotti

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:49:16 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.

Shirley Biscotti

5078 Nebbiolo Court

Fairfield, CA 94534
Order entered April 25, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00215

- CR

JAMIE MANGRAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Ca use No. F

- 0713817

- Q



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the clerk’s and reporter’s records because of ineffective counsel, indigence,

or for any other reason.

• The trial court s hall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

• If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the clerk’s and reporter’s records. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal.• The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for th e delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can

be filed.

• The trial court shall next determine the date by which the clerk’s record will be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be

reinstated th irty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
From: Brenda Nichols

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:44:47 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,

Brenda Nichols

150 N 18th Ave

suite 320

Phoenix, AZ 85007
From: Iva Riddle

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Give women access to free contraceptives!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:41:25 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.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

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 

HomeMEDIANEWS ARTICLESNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. and Royal Saudi air forces continue counter-UAS partnership

AFCENT Public Affairs

                AL UDEID AIR BASE, Qatar   –              
Protecting U.S. and allied forces against unmanned aerial system attacks continues to be a top priority in the U.S. Central Command theater of operations.   

In response, U.S. Air Forces Central and partner nations are continuing an ongoing series of integration missions through the summer of 2021.

On July 29, U.S. and Royal Saudi aircraft participated in a combined training operation to evaluate their ability to collaboratively track and destroy a simulated invading UAS within regional airspace.

“Protecting U.S., Coalition and partner nation forces by countering the UAS threat remains a critical concern across the region,” said Col. Matt Dietz, U.S. AFCENT Director of Operations. “Our Saudi Arabian partners share that concern, and together we’re building on previous training to develop an effective, collaborative capability to protect our common interests.”

U.S. AFCENT works closely with partner nations to ensure the security and stability of regional airspace.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### James C. Moore, Plaintiff, v. The E. M. Birdsall Company, Defendant.

Motion for new trial denied and judgment of nonsuit ordered for defendant. Opinion by Bradley, J.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0476

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: G.M., Respondent and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 22 2023

02/22/2023
Case Number: DA 21-0476
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, J. Bradford Hanson, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB**of iVOW, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this****report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:

 

a)             Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)             Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)             all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: November 14, 2005

 

 
| /s/ J. Bradford Hanson                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| J. Bradford Hanson                     |   |
| Vice President  of Finance,            |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer and Secretary |   |

 

----
From: ZoieEmilyFur@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: WOMEN NEED THIS PETITION SIGNED--- PREVENTIVE CARE

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:21:11 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.

Judy Boone

Forest Hill

Texas
From: Ellen Shaffer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment on religious exception, Re: CMS-9992-IFC2

Date: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:56:29 AM

August, 6, 2011

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 54

TD 9541

RIN 1545-BJ60

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration

29 CFR Part 2590

RIN 1210-AB44

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CMS-9992-IFC2

45 CFR Part 147

RIN 0938-AQ07

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

Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

We applaud HHS' regulations accepting the Institute of Medicine's well-grounded

recommendations for adding 8 new preventive services for women to be covered

without additional co-payments and deductibles. The scientific recognition of these

important services, including contraception and screening for domestic violence, and

easing the economic burden to access them, will enormously improve the lives of all

women and their partners and families.

We regret however the amendment offering certain religious employers the option

not to include contraception as a preventive service. We appreciate that the

religious employers in question are narrowly defined, in accordance with earlier court

cases; in essence, church employees could be affected, but not church-affiliated

hospitals or health plans.

Nevertheless, many women who work for and attend the Catholic Church, for

example, do not necessarily agree with the Church's position banning all but one

method of contraception. Virtually all sexually active Catholic women have used a

banned method of birth control, and 63% support covering contraception through

insurance. It is unfortunate that some of these women would be asked to choose

among their faith, their families, and the opinions of their employers.

We request that HHS reconsider and reverse this amendment.

Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH, Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign

-- 

Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH

Co-Director, Center for Policy Analysis

San Francisco Presidio

P.O. Box 29586

San Francisco, CA 94129-0586
Phone 415-922-6204

cell: 415-680-4603

fax: 415-885-4091

ershaffer@gmail.com

www.oursilverribbon.org
From: Robin Sherwood

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:23:40 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

It's about time!

Although I'm very pleased with this landmark decision and I applaud it, I'm dismayed it was such a long

time coming considering the fact that it was an unquestioned given that men would get insurance

coverage for Viagra since its inception.

Now, if only we - as a society - could begin to alter the conversation and have more mature, realistic

dialogues about human sexuality and how preventing unwanted pregnancies is not only good for society

it is good for the health and well-being of men and women alike.

It is also high time we begin to examine the strange and hypocritical moral crusade of many a politician

and talking head and their unsavory connection with the media's charade of "family values" while

simultaneously sending mixed signals to us all via perpetually hyper sexualized images of - all too often

- teenaged or preteen girls.

That said, this is progress and I, for one, hope for more!

Sincerely,

Robin Sherwood

Bloomfield, CT

Sincerely,

Robin Sherwood

14 Duncaster Rd

Bloomfield, CT 06002
From: Jim Doyle

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment on definition of religious employer

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 6:43:39 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.

Regards,

Jim Doyle

Carrollton, TX