alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Bud Weber

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive health care for women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:25:04 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.

Pat and Bud Weber

527 Park Estates Square
From: Laurel Pendleton

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: A heart for the future

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:51:34 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I wanted to thank you for the recent support of women's health. I have no sad story to share, although

I've heard enough from friends and family. I am just a young woman who has been working hard to

pursue what she feels are significant dreams for her future here in the United States. Although I align

myself with believing in the christian faith, I am as far from the 'right' as it gets. I don't plan on having

my own children, as I know there are plenty out there already that need support. That being said, it

means so much to me that the department of health and human services realizes that having control of

your life and future goes beyond the boundaries of economics. When insurance steps up to the plate

and gives women a choice, it will benefit us all.

Thank you again for fighting this incredibly difficult fight.

Sincerely,

Laurel Pendleton

31 Croxton Ave

Oakland, CA 94611
Page | of 2

CREG-HF4)2 76

SEP 2 fu)

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH [As of: September 02, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

SUBMISSION Tracking No. sobze74o
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-2010-0010-0630
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Ss

Submitter Information

Name: Jennifer Dykeman
Address:
5335 Shaw Ave.
Saint Louis, MO, 63110
il: jenniferdykeman@sbcglobal.net
2 314-772-5170

General Comment

8/11/2010

Office of Consumer 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 a consumer 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 of the 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 and
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

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P..._ 9/2/2010


Page 2 of 2

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.

Jennifer Dykeman

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P..._ 9/2/2010
From: Margaret Hinski

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:58:06 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Margaret Hinski
Scottsdale, Arizona
From: Sanderson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Accept the Recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:03:24 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 80 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 80

     Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on House 
          Administration in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2001

 Mr. Ney submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on House 
          Administration in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on House Administration 
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $7,859,306 for the One 
Hundred Seventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $3,765,460 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2001, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2002; and
            (2) not more than $4,093,846 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2002, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2003.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

 
| The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   (i)                                                                                                                                                                                                   | the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

  |
|   (ii)                                                                                                                                                                                                  | the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.

  |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |

 
| Dated: August 1 2005      |   | By:   | /s/ JAMES J. JUDGE                         |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |   |            | James J. Judge                                                                                                                                                          |
|                                               |   |            | Senior Vice President,                                                                                                                                                  |
|                                               |   |            | Treasurer and Chief                                                                                                                                                     |
|                                               |   |            | Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                       |
From: Eleanor Prior

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:19:37 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. These are

necessary services for women, and should not be impinged on by the belief systems of some.

Thank you,

Eleanor Prior
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Temple-InlandInc. of our report dated February 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsof Temple-Inland Inc., included in the 2007 Annual Report to Shareholders of Temple-Inland Inc.We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: 1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-130034) of Temple-Inland Inc.  2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129545) of Temple-Inland Inc.  3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129546) of Temple-Inland Inc.  4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129547) of Temple-Inland Inc.  5) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129548) of Temple-Inland Inc.  6) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129549) of Temple-Inland Inc.  7) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-113180) of Temple-Inland Inc.  8) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-105072) of Temple-Inland Inc.  9) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-33702) of Temple-Inland Inc.  10) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-27469) of Temple-Inland Inc.  11) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-63104) of Temple-Inland Inc.  12) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-54388) of Temple-Inland Inc.  13) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-48034) of Temple-Inland Inc.  14) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-43802) of Temple-Inland Inc.  15) Registration Statement (Post Effective Amendment Number 1 on Form S-8 No. 33-27286) ofTemple-Inland Inc.  16) Registration Statement (Post Effective Amendment Number 2 on Form S-8 No. 33-32124) ofTemple-Inland Inc.of our report dated February 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofTemple-Inland Inc., incorporated herein by reference, and our report dated February 25, 2008, withrespect to the effectiveness of Temple-Inland Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 29, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young
From: Mary Sue Barr

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:49:04 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Mary Sue Barr
Elmhurst, Illinois
From: D Touchet

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: lack of consciene protection

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:06:07 PM

I express my opposition to the definition of "religious employer" within

the context of a lack of true conscience protection!

It seems that more and more the government is trying to replace religion and

suppress real religious expression and supports a religion that want to destroy the

Christian religion and anyone who professes ti.

Douglas Touchet
From: Mary E. Bussey

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:48:25 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,

Mary E. Bussey

4116 Keewatin Trail

Verona, WI 53593
From: Florence McNally

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: support access to preventative care and contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:05:34 PM

Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

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.