alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: chhdsn58@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:21:12 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,

Cheryl Freberg-Hudson

, 92557-1823
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (1.33 MB)
 
 Camp Taji Iraq Combined Joint Task Force Operation inherent resolve cjtf oir combined joint forces land component command cjflcc iraqi army ranger training Camp Taji Iraq Combined Joint Task Force Operation inherent reso
 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
‘Kreg 12059) -/6

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION As of: September 01, 2011
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS Received: August 10, 2011
SRANCH Status: Posted
PU LIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011
Tracking No. 80edd126
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0107
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: TERRI BROOKS
Address:
FONTANA, CA, San Marino,

General Comment

IT IS NOT RIGHT TO FORCE THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS TO SUBSIDIZE BIRTH
CONTROL IN ANY FORM FOR PERSONS WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT. THERE ARE
ALREADY PROGRAMS AVAILABLE THAT PROVIDE FREE BIRTH CONTROL. THE
GOVERNMENT IS OVERSTEPPING ITS BOUNDARIES. I ALREADY PAY ENOUGH IN
TAXES AND I DON'T WANT TO PAY ANYMORE. THIS LAW IS ALSO NOT TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THAT EVERYONE'S HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS WILL GO
UP TO COVER THE ADDED BURDEN TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. IN
ADDITION, FORCING EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE BIRTH CONTROL AND/OR THE
MORNING AFTER PILL VIOLATES PEOPLE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. WE ARE NOT A
SOCIALIST COUNTRY, WE NEED TO STOP IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS THAT
PROMOTE A WELFARE STATE.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000..._ 9/1/2011
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

BiodiversityBiological SciencesElementary Secondary EducationHigher EducationResource MaterialsScience ActivitiesScience EducationWildlifeWorld Wide Web

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: timl@fleetwoodgroup.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:58:42 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,

Tim Lambrix

West Olive, MI 49460
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              10,919 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                       39,919 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           521 
<INVENTORY>                                         34,842 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    93,107 
<PP&E>                                              39,112 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      17,757 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     155,688 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               55,325 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                               137 
<OTHER-SE>                                        (119,546)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       155,688 
<SALES>                                            156,618 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   156,618 
<CGS>                                               76,065 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       73,958 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14,780 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (5,052)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,812 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (7,864)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                        (7,864)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.86)
                                               


</TABLE>
From: Bonnie Levinson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious refusal exemption

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:13:09 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.

Thank you.

Bonnie Levinson

San Francisco, CA

415-292-9781

415-806-0018 cell
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No
PMN: 09-0056 & 57 Standard Review Draft 12/24/2008 Revision 05/26/2009

ENGINEER: Arnold \ CPW PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: safety glasses or goggles/ chemical resistant gloves and protective clothing/ adequate ventilation Respirator: follow OSHA respirator regulations Health Effects: Irritating to eyes and respiratory system/ slight skin irritation may occur/ may irritate gastrointestinal tract/ mucus membrane irritant
TLV/PEL:
none established

CRSS : Chemical Name: [5,6]Fullerene-C84-D2 S-H20: 0.000001 g/L @
VP: 1.0E-6 torr @
MW: 841.00 %<500 %<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: Neat: Mfg: Proc/Form: End Use:Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns) (11/21/2008):
Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

. Migration to groundwater: U PBT rating: P1B1T1 LVE PBT Rating is PU BU T1 Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: P2 Claim:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: NoSTANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No
PMN: 09-0056 & 57

Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr:
Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note: Water not required per SAT.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:
Basis:

Inhalation:Dermal:STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No
PMN: 09-0056 & 57

Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr:
Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note: Water not required per SAT.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:
Basis:Inhalation:

Dermal:STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No
PMN: 09-0056 57

Number of Sites/ Location: unknown site(s) Days/yr:
Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note: Water not required per SAT.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:
Basis:Inhalation:

Dermal:
#### Patrick Collins, Respondent, v. Jane A Jones, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court of Onondaga county and that of the Justices’ Court reversed, with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
No. 482, Misc.

#### Wilson *v.*South Carolina et al.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Daniel R. McLeod,*Attorney General of South Carolina, and *Clarence T. Goolsby, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Page | of 1
REG- 9021-10 oe

As of: September 01, 2011
Received: August 26, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011
Tracking No. 80efe9f5

(Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

LEGAL pp.
PUSLIGHTS, ‘

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0126
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

ST

Submitter Information

Name: Cherie J Guelker

Address:
19755 Coventry Cir
Marthasville, MO, 63357-2655

General Comment

This comment regards the exemption for religious employers. The definition of religious
employers is far too restrictive. Catholic hospitals, schools, and other social agencies provide
incalculable benefit to American society. They serve many non-Catholics to their benefit. While
they do not directly teach the Catholic faith and, indeed, that would be inappropriate, these
institutions are Catholic in identity and their mission flows from Catholic teaching. They should
not be required to provide insurance that includes services in direct opposition to their religious
beliefs.

This country was founded by people seeking to practice their religion without persecution or
government interference. Freedom to practice one's religious beliefs has been a basic tenet of
American law and practice. Workers are free to choose for whom they work. Also, these
contraceptive and abortafacient drugs are available at little or no charge from clinics and Planned
Parenthood. The definition of religious institutions should be amended to include any institution
that is owned and operated by a religious organization.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
From: kjvanwagner@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40:35 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,

Kent Van Wagner

Bryan, OH 43506
From: Lbj1215lbj@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: (no subject)

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:14:39 PM

PLEASE LET WOMEN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ABOUT THEIR

BODIES AND TELL EMPLOYERS TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS!!!!
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPERIODIC REPORT**

 

I, Joseph W.Saunders, President and Chief Executive Officer of Providian FinancialCorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Dated: May 15, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/ Joseph  W. Saunders                |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph W.  Saunders                    |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF WARRANTECH CORPORATION


1. WARRANTECH CONSUMER PRODUCT SERVICES, INC.
         a Connecticut corporation

2. WCPS OF FLORIDA, INC.
         a Florida corporation

3. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
         a Connecticut corporation

4. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
         a California corporation

5. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE RISK PURCHASING GROUP, INC.
         a Michigan corporation

6. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF FLORIDA, INC.
         a Florida corporation

7. WARRANTECH DIRECT, INC.
         a Texas corporation

8. WARRANTECH (UK) LIMITED
         a company incorporated in England

9. WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
         a Delaware corporation

10. WCPS OF CANADA, INC.
         a Connecticut corporation

11. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CANADA, INC.
         a Connecticut corporation

12. WARRANTECH EUROPE PLC
         a company incorporated in England

13. WARRANTECH ADDITIVE, INC.
         a Texas corporation

14. WARRANTECH HOME SERVICE COMPANY
         a Connecticut corporation

15. WARRANTECH CARIBBEAN LTD
         a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands


<PAGE>

16. WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
         a Florida corporation

17. REPAIRMASTER CANADA, INC.
         a company incorporated in Canada

18. WCPS DIRECT, INC.
         a Texas corporation

19. WHSC DIRECT, INC.
         a Texas corporation

20. WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
         a Connecticut corporation

21. WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL de CHILE
         a Company incorporated in Chile

22. VEMECO, INC.
         a Connecticut corporation

23. WARRANTECH MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY
         a  Delaware corporation

24. WCPS CORP.
         a  Delaware corporation

25. W DIRECT CORP.
         a Delaware corporation

26. W AUTO CORP.
         a Delaware corporation

27. WARRANTECH MANAGEMENT COMPANY
         a Delaware corporation

28. WARRANTECH MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
         a Texas limited partnership

29. WARRANTECH DIRECT I, L.P.
         a Texas limited partnership

30. WARRANTECH SERVICES, L.P.
         a Texas limited partnership

31. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE I, L.P.
         a Texas limited partnership


<PAGE>
No. 580.

#### Hall *v.*United States.

*Wesley R. Asinof*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Robert G. Maysack*for the United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Thomas S. Napier, Appellant, *v.*Charles Spielmann et al., Composing the Firm of Spielmann & Company, Respondents.

*Napier*v. *Spielmann,*146 App. Div. 951, affirmed.

(Argued February 10, 1913;

decided February 25, 1913.)

Appeal frown a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 8, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict for an amount less than that demanded in the complaint, in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract.

*J. Noble Hayes*for appellant.

*Charles E. Rushmore*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Willard Bartlett, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan and Miller, JJ.