alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: “religious refusal” exemptions for women"s basic health care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:37:19 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. I have a daughter that was raped twice while she 

was a college student. She depended upon contraceptives to prevent a pregnancy. This was several years ago. 

Currently the rate of rapes of female college students is much higher than it was when my daughter was raped. 

Women should be able to protect themselves against and unwanted pregnancy. 

K. Gunter
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0386

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN MITCHELL TUFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 6, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 27 2022

12/27/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0386
Exhibit








	
			
	Number
	ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF DELAWARE
	Shares

	 
	 






SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY
COMMON STOCK
$.01 PAR VALUE
CUSIP 87073T 105


	
			
	This is to Certify that
	 
	is the owner of

	 
	fully paid and




Non-assessable shares of the above Company transferable only on the books of the Company by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.
Witness, the seal of the Company and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.
	
		
	Dated
	______________________________








	
			
	/s/ Christopher M. Abundis
	 
	/s/ Terry E. Swift

	Christopher M. Abundis, Secretary
	 
	Terry E. Swift, Chief Executive Officer
















SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY






PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECUIRTY OR OTHER
        IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE


    














	
		
	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)

	 

	 
	Shares

	of the Common Stock represented by the within certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
	Attorney

	to transfer the said shares on the books of the within named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.
	 








Dated: ________________________________________


	
		
	X
	 

	











x
	(SIGNATURE)













	 
	(SIGNATURE)








	
	
	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCK BROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM) 



	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED BY:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Page 1 of 1 

CRE@-- I J re//2 -/0 pLJ~~X~~E&SSRE'NO DlV1SION 

GULATIONS BRANCH As of: August 25, 2010 

Received: August 10, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: AUgust 25, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2d68d 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, .2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0395 


Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 


Submitter Information 

Name: Robbie M Bergman 


Address: 


Flagstaff, AZ, 

General Comment 

See attached file(s) 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0395.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency/componentlsubmitterInfoCoverPage?CaIl=... 8/25/2010 
Wednesday, August 25,2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As aconsumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS·2010­

0010-0001 ). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part ofthe new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection arId 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these 

regulations. 

Robbie Bergman 

485 Dine 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

928-525-1156
. Page 1 of 1
cep 9° QEC- Pf a-/0

PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH

As of: September 09, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: September 09, 201C

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0925
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

on} 0 . .
Unknewa) Submitter Information

General Comment

See Attached

Attachments

IRS-2010-0010-0925.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/9/2010


1.

(Page 34544—last paragraph) Pharmacy Networks--Health Plans and PBM’s should continue to
be given the autonomy to limit pharmacy networks without relinquishing Grandfather status in
order to create more cost effective service delivery and to help maintain affordability and
benefit integrity for its membership.

(Page 34544-last paragraph) “Changes to a prescription drug formulary, and if so, what
magnitude of changes would be made”--Health Plans with open formularies should be allowed
to make tier changes within their open formufaries in order to provide a more cost effective
plan and to maintain the integrity of pharmacy benefits for its membership. (Open formularies
cover all FDA-approved prescription legend drugs for covered services. Member cost-sharing
varies based on tier.)

The Health Plan offers employee-only coverage at no charge to members. The Plan seeks
clarification on the 5% increase allowed in the employee contribution. The Plan would
potentially consider a higher increase to the employee contribution from 0% to 10% of
employee costs, with an employee opportunity to ‘earn back’ premium dollars by completing a
health risk assessment including biometrics, and/or engaging in certain wellness activities as
appropriate. The net contribution increase would then be 5% or less. The Health Plan requests
that the Final Regulations consider these types of approaches that would result in a net
premium increase of 5%, but may start out at 10%.

The Health Plan offers self-funded coverage through a single Third Party Administrator, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina; the Plan offers two PPO options. The Plan requests
clarification on whether one plan may retain its Grandfather status, while the second plan
relinquishes its Grandfather status. Members would continue to have a choice between the
Plans at annual enrollment.
Searched for **http://www.ssa.gov/international/totalization_agreements.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ssa.gov/international/totalization_agreements.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
https://fdms.erulemaking.net/.../component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Print&PrintId=0900006480b2f7b2&Comment=true[8/23/2010 9:44:47 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 23, 2010

Received: August 13, 2010

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80b2f7b2

Comments Due: August 27, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: HHS-OS-2010-0014

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits,

Rescissions, and PatientProtections

Comment On: HHS-OS-2010-0014-0001

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits,

Rescissions, and PatientProtections

Document: HHS-OS-2010-0014-DRAFT-0021

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-15278

Submitter Information

Name: Joe Cowles

Organization: Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Employee Insurance

General Comment

Please allow this to supplement my prior comments, filed on July 14, 2010 and re-submitted on August 5, 2010. 

The Public Employee Health Insurance Program maintains a general purpose stand-alone HRA. The stand-alone

HRA was established by the Kentucky General Assembly in 2006. Approximately 25,000 members elected the

stand-alone HRA option for the 2010 plan year. 

The open enrollment periods for calendar year health plan, beginning in January 1, 2011, are held in the fall of

2010. The Public Employee Health Insurance Program is the largest health plan in the Commonwealth of

Kentucky. The plan has approximately 160,000 contract holders and 265,000 covered lives. Open enrollment is

scheduled on October 11-31, 2010. The health plans offered for plan year 2011 have to be finalized this month,

August 2010, in advance of filing a statutorily required administrative regulation on September 15, 2010. 

What this means for the Public Employee Health Insurance Program is that no matter when or how the agencies

resolve the underlying question, it will be too late for plan sponsors to react for the upcoming plan year (2011),

since they must finalize their plan designs and develop their employee communications for 2011 open enrollment

in the next several weeks. Without some relief, plan sponsors, like Commonwealth of Kentucky, remain uncertain

and uncomfortable about whether they can continue to offer a stand-alone HRA during the 2011 plan year.

Unfortunately, based on the state statute, there is no really alternative but to offer the stand-alone HRA and

await further guidance. Accordingly, at a minimum, the agencies should make clear that stand-alone HRA’s may

continue to apply annual and lifetime limits during 2011, regardless of how this question is resolved in the longer

term. Anything short of the requested transitional relief not only prejudices plan sponsors like the Commonwealth

of Kentucky but also the 25,000 Kentucky citizens that rely on this stand-alone HRA to pay family medical

expenses. 

Thank you for your consideration.
08/09/2010 

'" 	 Office ofConswner Infonnation and Insurance Oversight 

Department of Health and Hwnan Services 

Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 


Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 


Re: Interim Final Ru1e for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 

Protection and Affotdable Care Act (PPACA);- . ' - ­

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the nwnber ofindividuals covered by 


PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1,2014 when most ofthe refonn components (Insurance 


Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 


The average conswner has a broad definition of "benefits." Conswners view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 

It is my opinion that the Rule may still resu1t in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

app1ic.a:-g~:m. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 

area '(Le."outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

, 	 qoes ~at mean a losfi of grandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

employee.' 1 ' '. ' '" '!, "'..,.. " " ',' ' 

Even by the most optimistiC estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 

remain outside the PP ACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change,creating another large SUb-population of excluded ' 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate 'the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

The Rule needs to b; clear, reasonable, and ;jili no ambigUities involved in determ:itllng whether 

a group health plan is "in or out." The decisions the federal government makes today will 

determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizeIiS across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support. ,',.,;" 

ThaliIC you for the oppot1Unity to comment on this regu1ation. r. . ,."1' ~.'." . _., : '. ....'.r, ; " ' ~ .' /'. ~! ".. ': ~ '" . 

ni~Pei~r Mellon 	 ' . ", , '": • ~ t 

\1" ';.' 

r. 	t· 

",
From: Tina Allen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:21:35 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,

Tina Allen

15 Broad St

New York, NY 10005
---

---

EXHIBIT 23.2



**CONSENT
  OF KESSELMAN & KESSELMAN CPAs (ISR), INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We hereby consent
  to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
  (No. 333-61895 and No. 33355970) of Ampal American Israel Corporation of our
  report dated March 24, 2004 relating to the financial statements, which appears
  in this Form 10-K.



/s/ KESSELMAN
  & KESSELMAN CPAs ( ISR)
  A member of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited
  Tel Aviv, Israel
  March 24, 2004

---

---
From: Judith Henningsen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:14:45 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,

Judith Henningsen

9 Lakeview Village

Montgomery, Tx 77356
From: modesign@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:50 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,

mary owens

Wimberley, TX 78676
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 117

To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk products or casein

from being labeled as domestic natural cheese, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 2001

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. JEFFORDS) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk

products or casein from being labeled as domestic natural

cheese, 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Quality Cheese Act

5 of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. NATURAL CHEESE STANDARD.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

8 (1)(A) any change in domestic natural cheese

9 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products or
2

•S 117 IS

1 casein to be labeled as domestic natural cheese

2 would result in increased costs to the dairy price

3 support program; and

4 (B) that change would be unfair to taxpayers,

5 who would be forced to pay more program costs;

6 (2) any change in domestic natural cheese

7 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products or

8 casein to be labeled as domestic natural cheese

9 would result in lower revenues for dairy farmers;

10 (3) any change in domestic natural cheese

11 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products or

12 casein to be labeled as domestic natural cheese

13 would cause dairy products containing dry ultra-fil14 tered milk or casein to become vulnerable to con15 tamination and would compromise the sanitation,

16 hydrosanitary, and phytosanitary standards of the

17 United States dairy industry; and

18 (4) changing the labeling standard for domestic

19 natural cheese would be misleading to the consumer.

20 (b) PROHIBITION.—Section 401 of the Federal Food,

21 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341) is amended—

22 (1) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)

23 Whenever’’; and

24 (2) by adding at the end the following:
3

•S 117 IS

1 ‘‘(b) The Commissioner may not use any Federal

2 funds to amend section 133.3 of title 21, Code of Federal

3 Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or

4 ruling), to include dry ultra-filtered milk or casein in the

5 definition of the term ‘milk’ or ‘nonfat milk’, as specified

6 in the standards of identity for cheese and cheese products

7 published at part 133 of title 21, Code of Federal Regula8 tions (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).’’.

Æ
From: Rachel Wayne

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:34:51 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,

Rachel Wayne

800 NW 18th Ave

APT. 13

GAINESVILLE, FL 32609