alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: goldiegraham@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:12:55 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,

Courtney Graham

Wheaton, IL 60187
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0030.html[8/29/2011 1:19:00 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 08, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80edae01

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

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

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

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

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0030

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Maria Suzanne Johnson

Address:

609 Belleview Blvd.

Steubenville, OH, 43952

Organization: Franciscan University of Steubenville

General Comment

I am strongly opposed to limiting the religious exemption clause only to church employers. It should

instead be tied to non-profits as described in the IRS tax code.

I have insurance through a Catholic institution with a private insurance plan. I am adamantly opposed

to paying for contraception and sterilization coverage. I believe these violate the dignity of the

human person and pervert the nature of the sexual act. Furthermore, emergency contraception can

be used to murder nascent human life. For these reasons, I am vehemently opposed to covering

contraception with my tax dollars and paying for its availablity on my private insurance plan.

For centuries, Catholics have thrown a lifeline to all in need. Now that same lifeline is a rope that

hangs us in these regulations. The current exemption requires that religious organizations

discriminate on the basis of creed. For Catholics to close ranks and doors, excluding anyone who

doesn't pass the "Catholic test" violates our foundational principles. If we are Catholic in belief, we

must be catholic (universal) in our actions.

Furthermore, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we are barred from discriminating under

penalty of losing federal funding. These regulations force us to choose between health insurance or

federal aid. Either way, our religious freedom is compromised.

"Congress shall make no law" abridging the free exercise of religion. Apparently the bureaucrats in

HHS think they can abridge all they want.
From: Arlene Mandell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: protect women"s health

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:01:09 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.

As Americans our goal for all women should be to encourage them to plan

their families so they can be more effective workers and take care of their

children. This will benefit the economy as a whole, the companies where

they work, and the children they bring into the world.

Thank you.

A. Mandell, Santa Rosa, CA
From: CHERYL HUNTLEY

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM recommendations

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:36:57 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 religiouslyrun 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.

Cheryl Huntley 

Jackson, MS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ronny Puga and Rickey Puga v. Barbara Salesi

Appellate case number: 01-14-00724-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-28575

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

The Court requests a response from counsel for appellee to Appellants’ Motion to Stay 

Appeal on Account of the Death of Appellee. The response, if any, is due within 10 days of the 

date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 4, 2014
Exhibit 32.1





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 the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Rogers Communications Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of British Columbia (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers 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:





1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  February 28, 2011
“Nadir H. Mohamed”Nadir H. MohamedPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  February 28, 2011
“William W. Linton”William W. LintonExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
From: William Dunbar

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:52:37 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

Kudos to the Department of Health & Human Services' for your landmark decision requiring health

insurers to cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

As I watch state after state ignore a woman's right to control her own body and make it even more

difficult for those who can least afford it obtain health care and family planning services, I become more

and more outraged that we are letting this happen.

This policy, however, 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 longterm health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Humane considerations aside, pure economics should be enough to recognize the importance of this

policy.

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

Sincerely,

William Dunbar

6724 Greenview Lane

Englewood, FL 34224
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 97

Recognizing the enduring contributions, heroic achievements, and dedicated

work of Shirley Anita Chisholm.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 2001

Ms. LEE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the enduring contributions, heroic achievements,

and dedicated work of Shirley Anita Chisholm.

Whereas Shirley Anita Chisholm has devoted her life to public service;

Whereas Shirley Anita Chisholm served in the New York Assembly from 1964 to 1968;

Whereas Shirley Anita Chisholm became the first African

American woman to be elected to Congress in 1968;

Whereas Congresswoman Chisholm was a fierce critic of the

seniority system in Congress, protested her assignment in

1969 to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of

Representatives, and won reassignment to a committee of

the House of Representatives on which she could better

serve her inner-city district in Brooklyn, New York;
2

•HRES 97 IH

Whereas Congresswoman Chisholm served as a Member of

Congress from 1968 until 1983;

Whereas Congresswoman Chisholm proposed legislation to increase funding for child care facilities in order to allow

such facilities to extend their hours of operation and provide services to both middle-class and low-income families;

Whereas in 1972 Congresswoman Chisholm became the first

African American, the first woman, and the first African

American woman to be a candidate for the nomination of

the Democratic Party for the office of President of the

United States;

Whereas Congresswoman Chisholm campaigned in the primaries of 12 States, won 28 delegates, and received 152

first ballot votes at the national convention for the nomination of the Democratic Party for the office of President

of the United States;

Whereas Congresswoman Chisholm has fought throughout

her life for fundamental rights for women, children, seniors, African Americans, Hispanics, and other minority

groups;

Whereas Congresswoman Chisholm has been a committed advocate for many progressive causes, including improving

education, ending discrimination in hiring practices, increasing the availability of child care, and expanding the

coverage of the Federal minimum wage laws to include

domestic employment;

Whereas in addition to the service of Congresswoman Chisholm as a legislator, Congresswoman Chisholm has

worked to improve society as a nursery school teacher, di-
3

•HRES 97 IH

rector of a child care facility, consultant for the New

York Department of Social Services, and educator; and

Whereas it is appropriate that the dedicated work and outstanding accomplishments of Congresswoman Chisholm

be recognized during the month of March, which is National Women’s History Month: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) recognizes the enduring contributions and

3 heroic achievements of Shirley Anita Chisholm; and

4 (2) appreciates the dedicated work of Shirley

5 Anita Chisholm to improve the lives and status of

6 women in the United States.

Æ
From: carmen.castro@exeloncorp.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:27 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,

Carmen Castro

Niles, IL 60714
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

    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  Home
  MEDIA
  NEWS ARTICLES
  News Article View
 News
 U.S. and Partner Aircrews Conduct Presence Patrol By U.S. Air Forces Central Public Affairs
                U.S. Air Forces Central Public Affairs
 Two U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancers flew a presence patrol mission in the Central Region that included several coalition and partner nation air forces today.  The bomber task force mission – the sixth in U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility this year – represented the U.S. led coalition’s commitment to promoting regional stability through partnership.  “Today’s presence patrol mission was an impressive demonstration of our combined power projection capabilities,” said Lt. Gen. Greg Guillot, Ninth Air Force (Air Forces Central) commander. “Simply put, each of our air forces is strong, and we are even stronger together.”  Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia joined the patrol over their respective airspaces, while U.S. fighter jets provided escort. The two-hour presence patrol flew into the CENTCOM AOR over the Red Sea and conducted rejoins with partner nations along the flight path before departing the region.  CENTCOM has coordinated five similar patrols – three in January, one in March and one in October – since the beginning of the year.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 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
# USCENTCOM dawn service commemorates ANZAC Day

/ Published April 25, 2022
TAMPA, Fla.,
Exhibit 10.32(a)













 


 


March 7, 2016


 


 


 


Middlesex Water Company


1500 Ronson Road


Iselin, New Jersey 08830-3020


 


	Re:	Extension of Expiration Date for that certain $20,000,000.00 Commercial Line of Credit




(“Line of Credit”)
extended by PNC Bank, National Association (the “Bank to Middlesex Water Company (the “Borrower”)


 


Dear Mr. O’Connor:


 


We are pleased to inform
you that the Line of Credit has been renewed. The Expiration Date of the Line of Credit, as set forth in that certain Amended and
Restated Committed Line of Credit Note executed and delivered by the Borrower to the Bank dated April 29, 2015 (the “Note”)
and/or that certain Amended and Restated Loan Agreement dated April 29, 2015 governing the Line of Credit (the “Loan Agreement”),
has been extended from January 31, 2017 to January 31, 2018, or such later date as may, in the Bank’s sole discretion, be
designated by the Bank by written notice from the Bank to the Borrower. All sums due under the Note, the Loan Agreement or any
related documents, instruments and agreements (collectively as amended from time to time, the “Loan Documents”)
shall be due and payable on the Expiration Date, as extended hereby. All other terms and conditions of the Loan Documents governing
the Line of Credit remain in full force and effect.


 


It has been a pleasure
working with you and I look forward to a continued successful relationship. Thank you again for your business.


 


Very truly yours,


 


	PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/Virginia G. Alling	 
	 	 	 
	 	Virginia G. Alling	 
	 	Senior Vice President
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                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 Select Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin
F. Jackson, Senior Vice President 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:

(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 position and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 10, 2004

                                 /s/ Martin F. Jackson
                               -----------------------------------------------
                               Martin F. Jackson
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
From: Julia Dawson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No employers should be able to use "religious refusals" to rob women of basic, necessary health care!

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:05:56 PM

No employers should be able to use “religious refusals” to rob women of basic, necessary

health care!

Why should a female employee’s health care be determined by her employer’s religious

beliefs?

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.

Julia Dawson

Miami, Florida