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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:34:32 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,

Andrea Redd

Edgewood, NM 87015
No. 363.

No. 443.

No. 478.

No. 488.

No. 62, Misc.

No. 326, Misc.

No. 403, Misc.

No. 598, Misc.

#### Ginsburg *v.*Ling, U. S. District Judge, Turner et ux. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Stratton et al. *v.*Daly, Gunderson Bros. Engineering Corp. *v.*Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp., Lieberman *v.*Ohio, DeLevay *v.*National Savings & Trust Co., Lieberman *v.*Columbus Bar Association, In re Disbarment of Gately,

*ante,*p. 932;

*ante,*p. 922;

*ante,*p. 934;

*ante,*p. 935;

*ante,*p. 925;

*ante,*p. 926;

*ante,*p. 927; and

*ante,*p. 918.

Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 232, Misc.

#### Bagley *v.*Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*John J. O’Connell,*Attorney General of Washington, and *Stephen C. Way,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Washington. Certiorari denied.
#### Dempster v. Collins.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Memorandum by

Learned, P. J.
From: linda@webcitygirls.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:26 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,

Linda Ponder

Miami Beach, FL 33141
From: kl7en@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:55:11 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,

Robert Kelly

Anchorage, AK 99516
From: neeleyr@fuse.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:58:52 AM

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,

Robert Neeley

Hamilton, OH 45011
From: blgti@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:24 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,

Todd Rehklau

Maryland Heights, MO 63043
From: wrocke@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:34:48 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,

William Siefert

Homer Glen, IL 60491
REG /203G)-/6 Page tof

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 31, 2011
BRANCH Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80cecd45
Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0017-0082
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Michael

Address:
4032 Burton Place West
Seattle, WA,

General Comment

I support the new policy (CMS-9992-IFC2) requiring health-insurance plans to make birth control
available without a co-pay.

Contraceptive coverage is highly cost effective. In short term medical costs alone, contraception saves 3
to 4 times as much as is spent. The longer term savings makes providing this coverage an obvious
choice, on fiscal basis alone. Having a child is one of the most expensive (both environmentally and
economically) decisions the typical person makes. This is far too important to be left as an
accident/unintentional act.

The cost to society of providing educating, criminal justice, health care, transportation, etc. for person is
huge. This investment is far too much to make on children that are not wanted by their parents.
Additionally those who are unwanted typically require even more health care, education and criminal
justice services than wanted children. The environmental costs are even more staggering. We can no
longer afford the 3 million unintended pregnancies a year. Providing contraceptives at no cost to the user
will save billions.

Employers (whether religious or otherwise) should not be allowed to opt out of the requirements. All
men and women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of whether or where they
work. Since contraceptive coverage saves money, allowing employers or insurers to opt out would
increase the cost of insurance for everyone involved. The morality of encouraging people to have
children that they do not want is dubious, requiring the employees (and society) to pay the extra cost
incurred for those unwanted births is obscene!

Thank you for this important investment in sustainability, cost reduction, environmental protection,
crime reduction, reduction in fossil fuel use and men’s, women’s and children’s health.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/31/2011
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A N TO N I O H ERN A N D EZ- FLO RES, a. k. a. G eorge S t even M art i nez, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70497 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 406- 553 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A nt oni o H e rnande z - F l or e s , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i ons f or can cel l at i o n o f rem o v al an dv o l u n t ary d ep artu re. O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 

# FI LED DE C 30 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70497 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f law . H am azaspyan v. H

older , 590 F . 3d 744, 747 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w . T he B I A pr ope r l yc onc l ude d tha tH e rnande z - F l or e s w a s notpr e j udi c e d by the IJ ’ s f ai l ure t o n ot i fyhi m of pre- concl usi on vo l un t ary departure athi s r em ov al p r o c e e d in g s . H is du e p r o c e s s c la im th e r e f o r e f a ils . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 204 F . 3d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e qu ir in g b o th e rr o ran d“s ub s tan tia l p r e ju d ic e ” to p r e v a il o n adu e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s ) . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s di sc re t i on ary deni alof H ernand ez F lo r e s ’ ap p lic a tio n f

o rp o s t- c o n c lu s io n v o lu n taryd e p artu r e . See 8 U . S. C. § § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , 1 2 2 9 c ( f ) . H e rnande z - F l or e s ’ r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons ar e una va i l i ng. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
From: rdhowald@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:11:45 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,

Diane Howald

Baton Rouge, LA 70815
From: pmstel@Juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:36:19 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,

Pamela Stelten

Carver, MN 55315