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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Preventative Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:25:59 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.

Thank you.
No. 158, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*John T. Corrigan*for respondent.

#### Perry *v.*Ohio.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio and for other relief denied.
From: RFMCOBILL@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:16:13 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,

BILL KENNEY

Beverly, MA 01915
No. 241.

#### Torpats *v.*McCone, Director of Central Intelligence Agency.

*Byron N. Scott*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Alan S. Rosenthal*for respondent.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
From: svictoria@madonna.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:49 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,

Victoria Indyk

Livonia, MI 48150
No. 102, Misc.

#### McCann *v.*Warden, Connecticut State Prison.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford County. Certiorari denied.
No. 166.

#### Fabianich et al. *v.*United States.

*Stanley M. Dietz*for petitioners.

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

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
From: martha2450@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:58 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,

Martha Spence

Durango, CO 81302
> FDLP Electronic Collection Archive   
> 
> You are now accessing the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection Archive for the following document:Title:
> Appalachian ReporterDate Archived:2/24/99Author/Publisher:Appalachian Regional CommissionSuDoc No.:Y 3.AP 4/2:11/ Item No.:1050-A-01Resource Identifier:http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS2404Availability:
> Autumn 1998
> AprilJune 1998
> JanuaryMarch 1998
> SeptemberNovember 1997
> JulyAugust 1997
> MayJune 1997
> MarchApril 1997
> JanuaryFebruary 1997 
> NovemberDecember 1996
> File Formats:htm; gif;For additional information about the FDLP Electronic Collection Archive, please refer to The FDLP Electronic Collection Archive----------------------**HELP! - [email protected] - 
> Local/Toll Free Phone - 
> Fax**  |   **Suggestions/Comments**
>  
> Page #hldgrecd.html April 14, 1999
#### BROOKSHIRE *v.*MISSOURI.

No. 351.

Decided November 5, 1962.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
**Exhibit21**

Subsidiaries ofRegistrant
| **Subsidiary**                        | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|------------|
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Immucor  Medizinische Diagnostik GmbH |       | Germany                                    |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Immucor Italia  S.r.l.                |       | Italy                                      |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Immucor  Diagnosticos Medicos Lda.    |       | Portugal                                   |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Gamma  Biologicals, Inc.              |       | United  States (Texas)                     |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Dominion  Biologicals Limited         |       | Canada                                     |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Immucor, S.L.                         |       | Spain                                      |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Immucor Gamma  Benelux SPRL.          |       | Belgium                                    |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Immucor-Kainos,  Inc.                 |       | Japan                                      |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| BCA Acquisition  Corporation          |       | United  States (Georgia)                   |       |
|                                  |       |                                       |       |
| Immucor Sales, Inc.                   |       | United States (Georgia)                    |       |

 

 

The Company owns,directly or indirectly, 100% of each of the above entities.

----
No. 54, Misc.

#### Alvarez, alias Walker, *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Theodore George Gilinsky*for the United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 578, Misc.

#### Tranowski *v.*Illinois.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
No. 330, Misc.

#### Threatt *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Richard W. Schmude*for the United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
No. 468.

#### Peke *v.*New Mexico.

*W. Peter McAtee*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of New Mexico. Certiorari denied.
From: chris.fewel@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

This is overreach by the federal government that I disagree with.

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.

At the very lease, if you will 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,

Chris Fewel

Costa Mesa, CA 92627
From: plangston_us@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:05 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. 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,

Peter Langston

Fort Collins, CO 80524
From: Barbara B. Barnard

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:00:17 PM

Dear Ms. Sebelius,

It appears the US has its own Taliban! The best advance in preventive health care

proposal for women and the religious right protests. Birth control measures for

women should have been covered by health insurance years ago. This issue should

be allowed to go in effect. This is one of the best ways to eliminate unwanted

pregnancies and reduce abortions. The religious right cannot have this both ways.. be

against birth control and also abortion. 

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.

A concerned female voter who lives in Alabama.
No. 569.

#### Corey *v.*United States.

*Russell Morton Brown*and *Maurice C. Goodpasture*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Theodore George Gilinsky*for the United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50036

Conference Calendar

 

LAWRENCE DUNBAR SMALLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;

R.V. FRANCO; JOSÉ SERRANO, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-96-CV-262

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lawrence Smalley (federal inmate number 60623-065) appeals

the dismissal of his action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Smalley contends that Warden R.V. Franco and Dr. José

Serrano were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

hold that the district court did not err in dismissing Smalley’s

action. Smalley has not alleged facts showing that Franco and
No. 97-50036 

-2-

Serrano were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition. 

In his complaint, Smalley admitted that he was given Benadryl and

Atterax for his itching and that blood and stool samples were

taken to help determine the cause of his itching. Although this

treatment did not improve his condition, Smalley has not alleged

that he was denied medical treatment or that his complaints were

ignored. See Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir.

1985). Smalley’s allegations amounted to nothing more than

unsuccessful medical treatment. Unsuccessful medical treatment

does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See Varnado

v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED.
From: bross@hrsi.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:30 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,

Bert Ross

Saint Joseph, MO 64506
#### Joseph S. Penoyer, Appellant, v. Edson Phillips, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, and the undertaking filed permitted to stand on the payment of ten dollars costs.
November 30, 1962.

No. 765, Misc.

#### McGee *v.*Eyman, Prison Superintendent.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.
No. 139.

#### Henwood et al. *v.*Securities and Exchange Commission et al.

*Morris Lavine*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Peter A. Dammann*and *Walter P. North*for the Securities and Exchange Commission, and *Frank G. Raichle*for United Industrial Corp., respondents.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.