alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Bob Strong

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Cc: Silvestre Reyes

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:28:40 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care 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.
From: Jackie Cotter

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: "Religious Refusal" Exemption

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:01:31 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.
From: stevebubbsr@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:57 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,

Steve Bubb

Walled Lake, MI 48390
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,003
<SECURITIES>                                       184
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                       251
<INVENTORY>                                        431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,706
<PP&E>                                          57,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,150
<BONDS>                                          8,743
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,020
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,410
<SALES>                                            423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,123
<CGS>                                              717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   334
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,751
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,224
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,527
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78
        

</TABLE>
From: Susan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventative care

Date: Saturday, September 03, 2011 5:03:59 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.

Susan Bagnara Thornton

603-673-2586

cell 603-566-2394

bagnara-thornton@comcast.net

www.carlislecollection.com
From: scottwpforsyth@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:44 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,

Scott Forsyth

Elizabeth, CO 80107
#### Edward Madden, Respondent, v. Charles B. Benedict, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Barker, J., not sitting.
#### Rhoda Freeborn, Administratrix, etc , Appellant, v. William A. Johnston, Respondent.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted; costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
From: Marie Scovron

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:20:16 PM

Department of Health and Human Services Staff:

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,

Marie Scovron

Lakeland, FL
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2099

JERRY L. BISHOP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PEPPERTREE RESORTS, LTD., a/k/a Equivest

Resorts Incorporated, a/k/a Equivest Finance,

a/k/a Equivest Financial, Incorporated, a/k/a

Equivest,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CA-01-87-1-T)

Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry L. Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Earl Thomison Holman, ADAMS,

HENDON, CARSON, CROW & SAENGER, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry L. Bishop appeals the district court’s orders accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary

judgment to the Defendants in his age discrimination and

retaliation suit and denying reconsideration of that order. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bishop v.

Peppertree Resorts, Ltd., No. CA-01-87-1-T (W.D.N.C. July 25, 2002;

Aug. 27, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: phintonr@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:00 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,

Paul Hinton

Glen Carbon, IL 62034
From: RB

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject ANY "religious exemptions" or claims of "religious employers"

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:00:21 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

AND ALL 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. ALL OF THESE

EXEMPTIONS MUST BE STOPPED.

I STRONGLY urge you to ensure women have FULL access to quality preventive

care by accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

RB, California
From: bwcaclark@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:42 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,

Bruce Clark

Patchogue, NY 11772
REG- J205G5)-10 Page | of |

AUG 3.1 07
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION As of: August 31, 2011
UBLICATION & REGULATIONS Received: August 06, 2011
BRANCH Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80ed9310
Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: [RS-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-2010-0017-0046
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Mike and Kathy Athearn
Address:

2971 Forgotten Ct.

Dorr, MI, 49323
Email: kathearn4372@charter.net

General Comment

Please do not force health care plans to cover contraceptives with no cost-sharing to the patient.
This means the cost will be shifted to other plan participants (increasing insurance premiums).
Patients are already able to receive free contraceptives through non-profits and Medicaid.

We also do not want to pay for Plan B and Ella, both of which can destroy human embryos. Please
do not ignore the rights of those who morally oppose abortifacients.

Thank you for considering our concerns.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900.... 8/31/2011
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 (1.08 MB)
 
 CSTC-A AFG Advisor Training train advise assist Resolute Support
 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
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Journal Register Company (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), the Company, Robert M. Jelenic, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Julie A. Beck, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Robert M. Jelenic                    Robert M. JelenicChairman and Chief Executive OfficerMay 11, 2007

/s/ Julie A. Beck                            Julie A. BeckSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer May 11, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as may be expressly set forth by specific reference in any such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Journal Register Company and will be retained by Journal Register Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

1

----