alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Janice Jarrett

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:08:11 PM

Dear Officials of HHS:

I just read the obituary of a brave woman who challenged the status quo and 

insisted only a few decades ago to make sure and include women in standard 

scientific tests to help cure diseases. As in the ubiquitous use of "he" for both male 

and female human beings, women were ignored in seeking findings to improve 

human health by our own government agencies. At least until a brave woman put in

a position of power acted on our behalf. It is not surprising to note that she was 

fiercely opposed. This astonishing oversight, this lopsided view, is as disturbing in 

hindsight as other shameful discriminations this country has addressed over the 

years.

Looking back, we can see the incredible injustice she exposed, and can only 

estimate the number of women who suffered and perished because of the inequality

BUILT into the system.

Now, you have a chance to be like her. Because now you have a threat to equality 

posed by those who would enforce their religious beliefs on others. The right of the 

individual to not suffer discrimination based on religion is one of the ones fought for 

by the founders of the US. That's why many fled their country of origin. And 

whatever the personal beliefs of the founders, they advocated the separation of 

church and state. Besides laws, institutional policies are crucial to how and where 

these freedoms stay protected.

So:

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.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Janice Jarrett

5480 No Kennebec Lane

Tucson, AZ 85704
#### BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD et al. *v.*UNITED STATES et al.

No. 230.

Decided October 15, 1962.

*Joseph F. Eshelman, James Garfield, Conrad W. Oberdorfer, Kenneth H. I/undmark, R. G. Bleakney, Jr., R. D. Brooks, R. B. Claytor, E. A. Kaier, W. T. Pierson*and *D. M. Tolmie*for appellants.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Elliott H. Moyer*and *Robert W. Ginnane*for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

*R. Wray Henriott, W. L. Grubbs*and *Joseph L. Lenihan*for the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al., appellees.

Per Curiam.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.