alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Irudayam Yeddanapalli

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA; Bill Crnin

Subject: Conscience Protection in Health Care Services

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:24:29 PM

Sir,

"The HiHi,poSioThe current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection

for those committed to preserving life. Healthcare plans should not be forced to violate the moral and

religious convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in the health care system.

Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access to health care and religious

freedom of conscience.

Hope you will consider this important point in Health Care Services.

Regards, Irudayam .Y

r do not need our condescending or our pity. They only need our love and our tenderness." Mother

Theresa
# The Information Age:

## An Anthology on Its Impact and Consequences

**Edited by David S. Alberts and Daniel S. Papp**

----

**Table of Contents**

**Preface**

**Acknowledgments**

Part I. The Information and Communication Revolution

Part II. Business, Commerce, and Services

Part III. Government and the Military

Part IV. International Affairs

About the Editors

About the Authors

----

Contact   UsNDU   Press Home PageNDU Home PageINSS Home Page

Last Update:      October1, 2002
From: Susannah Miller

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Exemptions for religious employers

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:49:13 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.
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  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.76 MB)
 
 Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads coronavirus
 Photo Gallery
 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
N. Y. SUPREME COURT.

#### John C. Fogg, plaintiff and respondent, agt. John Edwards, defendant and appellant.

*Security for costs*— *Laws of*1875, *chapter*305, *section*4.

Chapter 805, Laws of 1875, should be liberally construed, and a nonresident plaintiff may be required, at any stage of the litigation, to file additional security to cover costs and disbursements already accrued and incurred in the action, and the costs and disbursements probably to accrue and be incurred in the further progress pf the action, where the penalty of the bond filed is insufficient for that purpose.

*First Department, General Term, January,*1878.

This is an appeal from an order of Mr. justice Donohue, sitting at special term, denying a motion for additional security for costs, on the part of plaintiff, who was a non-resident, under chapter '305, Laws of 1875, section 4.

At the commencement of the action defendant obtained an order requiring plaintiff to file security for costs, as a non*291resident, and, pursuant to that order, the plaintiff filed such security in the sum of $250.

Subsequently the case was referred to a referee before whom the action had been pending for upwards of a year, and all the testimony was in and the reference ready to be summed up. These facts were made to appear by affidavit, and it also appeared that the expenses already incurred amounted to about $500, and in the event of his being successful in the suit, the costs and disbursements would greatly exceed the amount of the bond filed.

*Hail c& Blandy,*for appellant.

The statute under which this motion is made is mandatory and should be construed so as to carry out its spirit and intent without regard to the question of *laches.*

*Eugme Smith {John H.*Miller), for respondent.

The defendant has lost his right by *laches.*

Brady, J.

Upon an examination of the statute of 1875, chapter 305, amendatory of the provisions of the Revised Statutes in relation to security for the payment of costs, we are satisfied that it should be liberally construed to accomplish the object in view when it was passed.

We think, under all the circumstances disclosed by the papers submitted for consideration, that the security should be increased $500 by an additional bond to that effect.

The order appealed from should be reversed and an order entered in accordance with this opinion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to abide the event of the action.

Davis, P. J., concurring
yearID sourceTypeIDsourceTypePopulation

2022 11 6708.87

2022 21 84447.1

2022 31 63705.9

2022 32 33491.6

2022 41 170.764

2022 42 89.3813

2022 43 1159.32

2022 51 98.0584

2022 52 6711.32

2022 53 862.571

2022 54 1552.01

2022 61 1431.19

2022 62 1712.17
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gevity HR, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John E. Panning, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§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) 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:  May 13, 2003 | /s/ JOHN E. PANNING                     | 
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------- | 
|                     |                                         | 
|                     | John E. Panning Chief Financial Officer | 



| | * | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 10.22

SCHEDULE TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT

The following is a list of the current directors and senior executive officers of Genzyme Corporation who are party to an Indemnification Agreement, the form of
which was filed as Exhibit 10.34 to our 1990 Form 10-K:

Constantine
E. Anagnostopoulos; Mara G. Aspinall; Mark R. Bamforth; Douglas A. Berthiaume; Henry E. Blair; Robert J. Carpenter; Earl M. Collier, Jr.; Charles L. Cooney; Zoltan A. Csimma;
Thomas J. DesRosier; Richard H. Douglas; Victor J. Dzau; David D. Fleming; Georges A. Gemayel; James A. Geraghty; Elliott D. Hillback, Jr.; Alison F. Lawton; Evan M. Lebson; Roger Louis; Connie Mack
III; Mary McGrane; John M. McPherson; C. Ann Merrifield; Richard A. Moscicki; Donald E. Pogorzelski; Alan E. Smith; Sandford D. Smith; Henri A. Termeer; Peter T. Traynor; G. Jan van Heek; Peter Wirth;
and Michael S. Wyzga.

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27 contains summary information extracted from marine transportation
subsidiaries consolidated condensed financial statements qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                       165
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,026
<PP&E>                                         128,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,888
<BONDS>                                         40,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,277
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,865
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,429
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (862)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,624
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
[No. 2503.]

#### Vickers et al. v. Chisholm.

1. Appellate Practice — Judgments—Record—Bill of Exceptions.

In case of conflict between the bill of exceptions and the record proper as to the character of the judgment appealed from, the record must control..

2. Practice — Appeal from County to District Court — Judgments —Dismissal.

In an appeal from the county court to the district court, the same cause tried- in the county court is pending in the district court for trial de novo, and in case of dismissal of the action the defendant is entitled to a judgment for his costs. The court has no authority to dismiss the action at defendant’s cost and order the county court to proceed on the judgment appealed from.

*Error to the District Court of Lake County.*

Mr. John A. Ewing and Mr. H. McGarry, for plaintiffs in error.

Gunter, J.

Plaintiff recovered a money judgment in the county court. Defendants appealed to the district court. The proceedings regulating the trial of the cause after it thus reached the district court were required to be in all respects *de novo.*— 1 Mills’ Ann. Stats., sec. 1089; *White House Mountain Gold Min. Co. v. Powell,*30 Colo. 397. By the appeal the same cause which had been tried in the county court was pending for trial *de novo*in the district court. The *411district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution, and entered judgment for costs against the defendant, and ordered that a writ of *procedendo*issue against the county court ordering that it proceed upon the judgment appealed therefrom.

There is some conflict between the record proper and the bill of exceptions as to this being the character of -the judgment, but as to the character of the judgment rendered, the judgment being a part of the record, the record must control the bill of exceptions. *—Kirkpatrick v. Wheeler,*8 Colo. 414.

It is manifest that the court had no power to enter a judgment dismissing the action, and at the same time, and as a part thereof, give judgment against defendant for costs and order the issuance of the writ of *procedendo.*Such a judgment would be contradictory in vital particulars. If the court dismissed the action, defendant should have his judgment for costs, and the court would have no power to order the county court to proceed further on the judgment appealed from. We think the judgment erroneous, and that the same should be reversed.

*Reversed.*
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 64

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Government Reform

in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 2001

Mr. BURTON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Government Reform in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Government

4 Reform (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries,

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $21,842,000.00 for the One Hun9 dred Seventh Congress.
2

•HRES 64 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $10,692,000.00 shall be

4 available for expenses incurred during the period be5 ginning at noon on January 3, 2001, and ending im6 mediately before noon on January 3, 2002; and

7 (2) not more than $11,150,000.00 shall be

8 available for expenses incurred during the period be9 ginning at noon on January 3, 2002, and ending im10 mediately before noon on January 3, 2003.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         364,961
<SECURITIES>                                    86,191
<RECEIVABLES>                                  299,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,807)
<INVENTORY>                                    235,269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,056,089
<PP&E>                                         534,901
<DEPRECIATION>                               (300,788)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,355,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          389,885
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,809
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,880,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,355,014
<SALES>                                      1,046,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,046,091
<CGS>                                          749,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  749,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (45,195)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             76,955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,955
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

REc-li G4 j2-10
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

BE CH As of: September 08, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted,

posted: September 06 2010
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-2010-0010-0834
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Mildred Oxilas
Address:

Cambria Heights, NY, 11411
Submitter's Representative: ACA
Organization: University of Bridgeport
Government Agency Type: Regional
Government Agency: ACA

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

IRS-2010-0010-0834.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/8/2010



August 14, 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).

1 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
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.

Mildred Oxilas
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0049.html[8/29/2011 2:06:36 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeaf6e

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-0049

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: David William Ethell

Address:

35 Roxbury Rd

Newville, PA, 17241

Email: david@ethell.com

Phone: 717-385-8345

Organization: Ethell Enterprises

General Comment

I am writing to express my concern about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and

specifically about the very narrow religious exemptions provided for in this Act. As a small business

owner I find it reprehensible that I may not exclude my business from health care plans that offer

abortifacient birth control drugs such as "Ella" and the "morning after" pill. Many business owners like

myself have very strong religious convictions about life and abortion and birth control and we should

not be required to go against our consciences and provide our employees access to such drugs.

The exemptions must either be expanded to include all business who so object or else dropped

altogether so a better solution can be brought forward.