TASK DEFINITION: Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The article does a good job of noting the cost of the combing salons, as well as cost of the medicinal shampoos and other drug treatments, specifically noting also that insurance may not cover the costs. The article cites data from a recent review article in a medical journal that outlines the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the medicinal treatments. “The medications have been found to be from 68% to 87% effective after one or two applications. Most don’t require combing,” the story says. We do wish they story explained what “67% effective” means for a typical person, however. The careful reader will note that the evidence for the effectiveness of the featured combing salons is mostly anecdotal, and it would have greatly strengthened the article to have been more explicit about this, as well as including more solid proof that standard lice medications are not as effective as they used to be. The article notes that various organizations and experts consider the chemical/medicinal treatments to be highly safe as well as effective. The story needed to be more explicit about the quality of evidence for each of the treatment options mentioned–combing, going to a delousing salon, over-the-counter treatments, prescription treatments. Only the latter are mentioned in the context of research. The story references a review article that compares the different approaches, but it provides no details on what kind of evidence the review is based on. No disease mongering here, and we were glad the story pointed out that there are no adverse physical health effects from lice. The article does a very good job of noting the conflicts of interest of those quoted. The story explored alternatives. Good job on this. It’s clear that businesses that assist with combing are easy to find, and over-the-counter shampoos are even easier. What appears to be “new” is the explosion of combing salons and newer prescription shampoos, as well as the review article published last week that evaluates them. This story doesn’t appear to rely on a news release. Claim: New Ways to Fight Super Lice

SOLUTION: The treatment of childhood cases of head lice infestations is a popular news media perennial at the start of the school year, and this Wall Street Journal story falls into that category. It covers the usual elements — prevalence of the infestations among school age children, over-the-counter and prescription treatments, home remedies (which generally don’t work) and reassurance about the pesky but essentially benign health impact. This story also takes a look at the rise of “lice-combing” salons and newer medications meant to stand in when older medications are ineffective. We were impressed by the depth of the sourcing, along with the details that helped readers assess any potential conflicts of interest among said sources. One thing we wished had been more detailed: How the evidence stacks up for each of the treatments. As the article itself makes clear, head lice infestation is a widespread, unpleasant, and disruptive — albeit relatively benign — condition that costs millions of families money, aggravation and time in efforts to prevent and treat. Adding to the nuisance of ridding scalps, tresses, clothing and home furnishings of the pests, some of the historic over-the-counter medicinal treatments have lost their power owing to drug-resistant mutations in the lice. Newer prescription medicines are effective, but worry an apparently growing number of parents who work hard to avoid what they consider unnecessary chemical exposure. Thus, parents are certain to be looking for the best and latest information about treatments.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The Democrat-led Senate and Assembly voted Thursday to repeal the exemption, which allows parents to cite religious beliefs to forego getting their child the vaccines required for school enrollment. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the measure minutes after the final vote. The law takes effect immediately but will give unvaccinated students up to 30 days after they enter a school to show they’ve had the first dose of each required immunization. With New York’s move, similar exemptions are still allowed in 45 states, though lawmakers in several of them have introduced their own legislation to eliminate the waiver. The issue is hotly contested and debate around it has often been emotional, pitting cries that religious freedom is being curtailed against warnings that public health is being endangered. After the vote in the Assembly, many of those watching from the gallery erupted in cries of “shame!” One woman yelled obscenities down to the lawmakers below. The debate has only intensified with this year’s measles outbreak , which federal officials recently said has surpassed 1,000 illnesses, the highest in 27 years. “I’m not aware of anything in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran or anything else that suggests you should not get vaccinated,” said Bronx Democrat Jeffrey Dinowitz, the bill’s Assembly sponsor. “If you choose to not vaccinate your child, therefore potentially endangering other children ... then you’re the one choosing not to send your children to school.” Hundreds of parents of unvaccinated children gathered at New York’s Capitol for the vote to protest. Stan Yung, a Long Island attorney and father, said his Russian Orthodox religious views and health concerns about vaccines will prevent him from vaccinating his three young children. His family, he said, may consider leaving the state. “People came to this country to get away from exactly this kind of stuff,” Yung said ahead of Thursday’s votes. Supporters of the bill say religious beliefs about vaccines shouldn’t eclipse scientific evidence that they work, noting the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that states have the right to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. During the Assembly’s floor debate, supporters brought up scourges of the past that were defeated in the U.S. through vaccines. “I’m old enough to have been around when polio was a real threat,” said Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan. “I believe in science.... Your personal opinions, which may be based on junk science, do not trump the greater good.” Supporters also suggest some parents may be claiming the religious exemption for their children even though their opposition is actually based on scientifically discredited claims about the dangers of vaccines. The bill would not change an existing state exemption given to children who cannot have vaccines for medical reasons, such as a weakened immune system. Cuomo told reporters on Wednesday that he believes public health — and the need to protect those who cannot get vaccinated because for medical reasons — outweighs the concerns about religious freedom. “I understand freedom of religion,” he said. “I have heard the anti-vaxxers’ theory, but I believe both are overwhelmed by the public health risk.” The current measles outbreak has renewed concern about the exemptions in many states. The nation last saw as many cases in 1992, when more than 2,200 were reported. The majority of cases are from outbreaks in New York in Orthodox Jewish communities. California removed personal belief vaccine exemptions for children in both public and private schools in 2015, after a measles outbreak at Disneyland sickened 147 people and spread across the U.S. and into Canada. Maine ended its religious exemption earlier this year. Mississippi and West Virginia also do not allow religious exemptions. Once common in the U.S., measles became rare after vaccination campaigns that started in the 1960s. A decade ago, there were fewer than 100 cases a year. Claim: New York ends religious exemption to vaccine mandates.

SOLUTION: New York eliminated the religious exemption to vaccine requirements for schoolchildren Thursday, as the nation’s worst measles outbreak in decades prompts states to reconsider giving parents ways to opt out of immunization rules.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Republican U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte faces a competitive reelection bid in New Hampshire and Democrats are already taking aim at her record on abortion and women’s health. Gov. Maggie Hassan, the only Democratic candidate in the race, is one of the latest to lob those criticisms. ""She has voted to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides healthcare to about 12,000 Granite State women,"" Hassan said in a recent interview with the Concord Monitor, referring to Ayotte. ""She’s voted to defund them six times."" Planned Parenthood, a women’s health care provider that also offers abortions, has become a lightning rod in recent years as elected officials in Washington and in New Hampshire have taken steps to cut the organization’s funding. The organization is no fan of Ayotte: Planned Parenthood’s political arm took out its first ad of the 2016 cycle this month targeting New Hampshire’s junior Senator. We decided to take a closer look at Hassan’s claim. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England runs five health centers across New Hampshire -- in Manchester, Claremont, Derry, Exeter and Keene. And roughly half of the patients who visit a Planned Parenthood clinic across the border in Vermont -- in White River Junction -- are from New Hampshire. The Planned Parenthood centers in New Hampshire all provide contraception, annual exams, STI testing and treatment, and pregnancy testing. The Manchester location, which saw 4,779 patients in 2014, provides surgical and medical abortions. The Keene location, visited by 1,871 patients in 2014, offers medication abortions, according to Kayla McCarthy, with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Altogether Planned Parenthood clinics in New Hampshire served just over 11,000 patients during 2014, according according to Vice President for Public Policy Jennifer Frizzell. Another 1,750 were seen in the White River Junction, VT clinic. That would mean Planned Parenthood clinics together saw roughly 12,000 New Hampshire patients in 2014, in line with Hassan’s claim. Now let’s look at how many times Ayotte has voted against Planned Parenthood funding. Ayotte, elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, has been a consistent opponent of abortion and critic of Planned Parenthood. We checked with Hassan’s campaign and they pointed us to six votes. Three votes took place all on the same day, Dec. 3, 2015. 1) That day the Senate voted 52-47 to block federal funding to Planned Parenthood and repeal the Affordable Care Act in one bill. Ayotte voted for it. 2) Ayotte voted against an amendment that would have stripped a provision from the bill to defund Planned Parenthood. (The amendment was defeated.) 3) Another amendment, proposed by Democrats, sought to continue federal funding for Planned Parenthood, but it was tabled (that is, set aside) and Ayotte voted in favor of tabling it. (President Obama ultimately vetoed the bill.) 4) Ayotte voted to advance a bill last August that sought to prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood. But the legislation failed to get the 60 votes it needed to move forward. 5) Ayotte voted in April 2011 for a resolution to prohibit federal dollars from funding Planned Parenthood. It failed, 42 to 58. 6) And in March 2011 Ayotte voted for a bill to fund the federal government, that included dozens of other spending items, but blocked federal funding to Planned Parenthood. The bill failed, 44 to 56. Ayotte said at the time: ""Our country is in a fiscal crisis… Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices, including many private organizations that have relied on federal resources,"" according to her office. In all, these six votes show some level opposition to funding for Planned Parenthood. However, some of them were procedural, and not all offered a clean up-or-down funding decision, as Hassan’s statement suggests. Ayotte’s office said she supported several other government spending bills that did not defund Planned Parenthood. And in September 2015, Ayotte voted not to move forward with a temporary government spending bill that sought to block federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Ayotte said at the time she supported defunding Planned Parenthood, but didn’t want to shut the government down to do it. ""Kelly Ayotte has voted to direct federal funding away from Planned Parenthood in an effort to better use federal dollars to fill gaps in women's health services for low-income women and preserve access to women’s health services,"" spokeswoman Liz Johnson said. Our ruling Hassan said Ayotte voted six times to defund Planned Parenthood. Ayotte has been a consistent critic of Planned Parenthood and has shown support for defunding the organization or opposition to continued funding in at least six votes. It’s worth noting that some were procedural votes and several were much larger bills that included a provision on Planned Parenthood funding. Hassan’s claim is accurate, but needs clarification." Claim: "Kelly Ayotte ""has voted to defund Planned Parenthood"" six times."

SOLUTION:
Hassan said Ayotte voted six times to defund Planned Parenthood. Ayotte has been a consistent critic of Planned Parenthood and has shown support for defunding the organization or opposition to continued funding in at least six votes. It’s worth noting that some were procedural votes and several were much larger bills that included a provision on Planned Parenthood funding. Hassan’s claim is accurate, but needs clarification.