alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: ermacox@san.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:32:03 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. I appreciate your

consideration of this recommendation. It will help thousands of women who are being penalized

because of where they work.

Thank you,

Erma Cox
From: frank belcastro

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:05:47 PM

-- 

frank belcastro

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

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

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

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

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

necessary health care.

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

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

all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions

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

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

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

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

thousands of women just because of where they work.

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

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal

exemption provisions.
From: jayjillc@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:12:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Contreras

Midlothian, IL 60445
From: salliemusicstar@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:54:19 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,

Sallie Brown

Jamul, CA 91935
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.56

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                    EQUIPMENT LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement")
                                  DATED AS OF
                               DECEMBER 23, 1987


       THIS AMENDMENT TO EQUIPMENT LEASE AGREEMENT dated December 23, 1987 is
made as of December 29th, 1995, between General Electric Capital Corporation
(hereinafter called "Lessor"), and Genetics Institute, Inc. (hereinafter called
"Lessee").  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Schedule and Agreement.

       NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in
hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree, to amend the
Agreement as follows:

       Solely with respect to Equipment Schedule No. G-3 and G-4 dated as of
December 29, 1994 and December 29th, 1995 respectively ("G-3 and G-4"), Lessee
agrees to the following:

1.  Notwithstanding anything in the Lease Agreement to the contrary, whichever
end of lease option the Lessee chooses for the first of Schedules G-3 or G-4 to
expire, Lessee shall be deemed to have elected to exercise the same option for
the other Schedule.

       Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the
Agreement remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessee and Lessor have caused this Amendment to
Equipment Lease Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives as of the date first above written.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL                        GENETICS INSTITUTE, INC.
  CORPORATION                                   Lessee
Lessor


By: /s/ Stephen E. White                        By: /s/ Joseph Grimm
   ---------------------                           --------------------
Name: Stephen E. White                          Name:  Joseph Grimm
      ------------------                             ------------------
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CUIDADO CASERO HOME HEALTH

OF EL PASO, INC.

,

Appellant,

v.

AYUDA HOME HEALTH CA RE

SERVICES, LLC, EDWIN G A.

MARTINEZ, LIZETTE MA RTINEZ,

JESUS R. RODRIGUEZ, AND OLGA L.

RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00332

- CV

Appeal from the

448th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2009

- 727 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the trial court’s

judgment grant ing summary judgment as to Appellees Ayuda Home Health, Edwing A.

Martinez, Lizette Martinez, and Jesus R. Rodriguez is affirm ed in its entirety. The trial cou rt’s

judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Olga L. Rodriguez is affirmed as to

Appellant’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and conversion and reversed as to

Appellant’s claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary du ty . T he case is remanded for

further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this Court

.2

We further order that Appellant, and its sureties, if any, 1 and Appellee Olga L. Rodriguez

each pay one

- half (1/2) the costs of this appeal. This decision shall be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.5.
From: Eileen Valek

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:56:37 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,

Eileen Valek
Sarasota, Florida
From: phintonr@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Paul Hinton

Glen Carbon, IL 62034
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 408 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 408

Recognizing the contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2002

   Mr. Wu (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Larson of 
Connecticut, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Honda, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. 
   Underwood, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Matsui, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
 Texas, Ms. Watson of California, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Lee, Ms. Solis, Ms. 
 Baldwin, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, and Mr. Schiff) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                          on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation.

Whereas Americans of Asian Pacific ancestry have made profound contributions to 
        American life, including the arts, the economy, education, science, 
        technology, politics, and sports;
Whereas Americans of Asian Pacific ancestry have demonstrated their patriotism 
        by honorably serving to defend the United States in times of armed 
        conflict, from the Civil War to the present;
Whereas according to decennial census in 2000, 10,242,998 Americans trace their 
        roots to Asia and 398,935 Americans trace their roots to Pacific 
        Islands;
Whereas at the direction of Congress in 1978, the President proclaimed the week 
        beginning May 4, 1979, as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Week, 
        providing an opportunity for the people of the United States to 
        recognize the history, concerns, contributions, and achievements of 
        Asian and Pacific Americans; and
Whereas in 1990, 1991, and 1992, Congress designated and the President 
        proclaimed the month of May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes that the United States draws its strength 
        from its diversity, including contributions made by Asian 
        Pacific Americans;
            (2) recognizes that the Asian Pacific American community is 
        an integral and vibrant part of American society;
            (3) supports the goals of Asian/Pacific American Heritage 
        Month; and
            (4) recognizes the profound contributions of Asian/Pacific 
        Americans to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
From: Allison Dryjo

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you!

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:12:06 AM

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.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Allison Dryjo

1013 Lincoln Place

Brooklyn, NY 11213
From: Marina B. Brown

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s preventive health care has to include contraception!

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

Dear Sir/Madam

I am delighted that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is 

finally considering adopting the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) recommendations 

that women’s preventive health care be completely covered by any new health 

insurance plans under the new health care reform law! It is time that women 

are not relegated to second class services.

But unfortunately I read that efforts are underway to expand “religious refusal” 

exemptions. If expanded, certain employers would be exempt from having to 

provide coverage for contraceptive services to their female employees if the 

employer is opposed to contraception. This is totally absurd on issues for the 

prevention of pregnancy!

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.

Sincerely,

Marina B. Brown

825 Newport Road

Ann Arbor, MI 48103-2305

marina@provide.net

734.663.6431

There is only one true worship, and that is the practice of justice. Robert Ingersoll
From: dblack@iwilson.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:45:53 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,

Duane Black

Grand Junction, CO 81505