alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: lrhoads13@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:56:22 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,

Susan Rhoads

Lutz, FL 33548
H. Res. 575 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 5, 2007. 

Whereas on June 17, 2003, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan held parliamentary elections, the fourth since 1989, 

and the first during the reign of His Majesty King 

Abdullah II; 

Whereas His Majesty King Abdullah II has announced that 

the next parliamentary elections in Jordan will be held 

November 20, 2007; 

Whereas municipal elections for the local councils were held 

on July 31, 2007, under a new reformed municipal elections law passed on February 4, 2007, under which the 

mayors and councils of all municipalities in Jordan were 

elected; 

Whereas the new reformed municipal elections law includes a 

20 percent quota for women in the council seats and reduces the age of eligible voters from 19 to 18 years of 

age in order to expand the voter base; 

Whereas with the direct assistance of the United States 

Agency for International Development and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Jordan has placed great 

emphasis in recent years on the rights of women to vote 

and run for public office, thereby serving as a model for 

other countries in the region; 
2 

•HRES 575 EH 

Whereas the people and the Government of Jordan are committed to continuing this progress; 

Whereas His Majesty King Abdullah II recently emphasized 

the importance of building a thriving civil society when 

he declared, ‘‘We in Jordan—and many others, throughout the Middle East—are working hard to create a civic 

environment in which our people will thrive. The basic requirement is an inclusive, democratic civil society—one 

that guarantees rights, delegates responsibilities, honors 

merit and rewards achievement. The foundation stones 

on which we build are peace and stability, basic civil and 

political rights, essential services, freedom of expression 

and the rule of law.’’; and 

Whereas Jordan continues to invest in reforming its educational system to incorporate democratic values and 

principles: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) commends the people, the Government of the 

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan , and His Majesty King 

Abdullah II for their decision to conduct municipal and 

parliamentary elections in 2007; 

(2) expresses its desire that Jordan’s progress toward democratization continue and flourish as a model 

for other Arab countries; 

(3) commends His Majesty King Abdullah II and 

the Jordanian people for striving to uphold women’s 

rights and enhance women’s participation in the political 

process; 
3 

•HRES 575 EH 

(4) reaffirms the special relationship that exists between the people of the United States and the people of 

Jordan; and 

(5) remains committed to assist Jordan , should it 

so desire, in promoting democratic reform. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: churchchoirboy@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:56:50 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,

Patrick O'Brien

Richland, WA 99354
Before the Second Division,

April 8, 1969

No. P69/89.

protest 61/12023-12248 (Chicago).

#### Arnold Schwinn & Company *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of inner tubes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Seedman International Corp. et al*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 3285), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
60 deduOt.ed from pay PO119 of Embers andhaveo 

oaweapoabingamountdeda~tedfrolD~~~ 

avallable for paying teachfst salaries, and 

traneadt same to the Executlre Searetary of the 

State Ward of Trustees as provided for in tus 

&Lct. Any college or unirex%ity or other eduo~~ 

tioual institution or ageuq nupported in whole 

or in part by the State 6hall hare the amouut retained or dM.uated from the f'uuds regularly approprlated by the State for the ourreut maiutenanoe for such educational departmate and institutiona .' -- SeC. 8, U. B. 60.602, Uh. 2W, 48th 

Legislature, Reg. Sess., VWIOII’S Tax. Beso. &aw 

ser., pp. 621-622, aroeading 2eo. 2 of Art. 2222-1, 

kev. Cir. Stat. Vernoats Codifioatlon. 

St rill thus be seeu that the deductions when made 

*shall be paid Into said Teaaher Daring Ihad.@ 

The verb "pap is one of ditrerent meanlnga, aoeording to the context. Vhen uoed rith respeot to a debt, it 

meaus to eotiafy,aud ouoh paymutmaybe either in oash,or 

other t&lug uhatsoerer acceptable to the aredltor. Iu cmmercial understahd%ng, Ouets cheek is paid when the draweebank, respeating the maker'6 order, delimrs the stun aalled 

for to the holder of the check. In yet auother seuse the 

word meaue to deliVerc depouit, or plaoe in the ha&is ot 

auother, a mu of nouey held in trust. 

CbViously, the payment requtred by the statute uuder 

oonsideration is that of the last illustration. 

The relation between the Wxpleyer am¶ the State 

Teachurs Retiremeut System is not one of debtor aud oreditor, 

but on the contrary is statutory - that Is to saJ, one of 

contributor to and custod.l.an of a publio fund. PaVBmut, 

therefore, by the employing authority to them xaesns the 

delivery or deposit by the oontributor and the receipt by 

the oustodian of theprmd,andthis mustbeinlawful money, 

or at least In ite equivalent - united sttites mom?y order 

or commroial paper cmverttble imediately at the place of 

receipt into cash for actual deposits. 

From what wo have soid it is clear we are of' the 

opinion your question should be answered in the affincatire. 

OS course, we should not be understood as holding that you 
464 

rould be forbidden to oocept s pereonsl cheek in auoh 

oaaea, for such accepting of a check would neoes&l~ 

be fpr 6OllectiOn a& Credit OtiJ. 

vwy truly yours, 

AT~OIUNX WllERAL OF T
From: Patricia Magaldi

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:10:10 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

As a citizen, a woman and a nurse I object in the strongest of terms to mandating

birth control with no co-pays under the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Patricia Magaldi RN, BSN
Litchfield, Connecticut
From: babsfam@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:11:52 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,

GREG BABCPCK

Boonton, NJ 07005
From: taquin@justice.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:55:55 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 Chimiak Chimiak

Greenbelt, MD 20770
Case No. 14,223.

#### TUCKER et al v. The MARY C. POTTER.

District Court, D. South Carolina.

Salvage — Lien—Customs Duties.

[In respect to the lien of salvors, it was held that custbms duties, in the order of payment, constitute a prior debt. They belong to the government; are regarded as the claim made by the supreme authority of the nation. Such duties are not possessed of any peculiarity distinct from other liens, making it necessary for the court to deduct them, and consider the balance only as representing the property saved. Decided by MA-GRATH, District Judge. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible. The above statement of the point determined was taken from Cohen, Adm. Law, 189.] ■
From: racehrsrun@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:36:59 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 not only for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B), but also

because each individual should pay for their own personal choices of birth control or abortive drugs.

Thirty years ago the public paid their own keeping the cost of insurance down and personal choices

personal.

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,

C. R.

Holland, MI 49424
From: ajc23@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:17:21 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,

Al Cavalli

Massapequa Park, NY 11762
From: mrgnellie@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:20:40 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.

Sincerely,

Ellie Gudeman

Roanoke, VA 24017
No. 65997.

#### M. S. Cowen Co. *v.*United States,

protests 279586-K and 58/449 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.