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.

Q: Paragraph: "Gov. Rick Perry marked the 38th anniversary of what he called ""the tragedy"" of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision by speaking to fellow abortion opponents at the Jan. 22 Texas Rally for Life outside the Capitol building. Perry said that since the 1973 decision, which established abortion as a constitutional right, ""50 million, 50 million children have lost their chances. That is a catastrophic number."" PolitiFact Texas readers asked us to check Perry's statement. But before diving in, we noted two issues with Perry's use of ""children"" -- a flash point in the political, moral and scientific national debate over abortion. One, abortion rights supporters dispute calling unborn fetuses ""children."" Second, an unknown share of the 50 million aborted pregnancies referenced by Perry would not have resulted in live children, due to the natural risk of miscarriages and stillbirths. For our inquiry, we focused on the number of U.S. abortions since Roe was decided. The Roe v. Wade ruling, issued Jan. 22, 1973, struck down a Texas law prohibiting nearly all abortions and held that the right to privacy ""is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."" It said states could not prohibit a woman from having an abortion before viability, the time at which a fetus can survive outside a woman's body. It noted that viability ""is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."" After fetal viability, the court said, states could limit abortions provided that their policies met certain requirements, including an exception to protect the life of the woman. Since then, other Supreme Court rulings have affirmed states' rights to approve further restrictions. During the early 1960s, every state except Pennsylvania allowed abortions when needed to protect a woman's life, according to a March 2003 article published by the universally respected Guttmacher Institute, which studies and advocates on issues related to reproductive health. At the time Roe was decided, 17 states allowed abortions in certain other situations such as when pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. In 1972, the year before the Roe ruling, about 587,000 legal abortions were reported to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to a 2005 CDC report. And since 1973? Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier pointed us to a January 2010 report from the National Right to Life Committee, a Washington-based group that opposes abortion, that says about 52 million abortions took place from 1973 through 2009. According to the report, the group arrived at the total using figures from the Guttmacher Institute for 1973 through 2005; estimating a number for the next four years; and finally adding 3 percent to account for under-reporting. The National Right to Life publication says 3 percent is the under-reporting rate estimated by Guttmacher. Using a similar methodology, National Right to Life has since updated its numbers. The new report says that more than 53 million abortions took place from 1973 through 2010. Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at Guttmacher, told us the institute doesn't adjust its numbers — which are estimates based on surveys of facilities where abortions are performed, including hospitals and clinics — for under-reporting. She said a 1994 Guttmacher study had found that some small facilities weren't included in the institute's survey, which indicated that the number of abortions in 1992 was actually 3 percent to 4 percent more than reported. Our attempts to reach officials at National Right to Life were unsuccessful. Next, we sought the most up-to-date abortion data from Guttmacher. Spokeswoman Rebecca Wind provided us with a 2011 report that includes annual data on abortions from 1973 through 2008. The total: 49.3 million. We also sought abortion numbers from other sources. Data from the CDC indicate that there were 37.8 million abortions from 1973 through 2006. However, according to the CDC's website, states are not required to report abortion information to the agency, so in some years, the numbers are incomplete. For example, the CDC's 2006 data do not include information on abortions in California, Louisiana or New Hampshire. Representatives of abortion rights organizations Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Texas told us that the Guttmacher Institute is the best source for this information. Summing up: Perry's statement indicating that there have been 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973 appears to be on target. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 49.3 million abortions in the U.S. through 2008 — 700,000 shy of 50 million. Considering that Guttmacher says there were more than 1 million abortions in both 2007 and 2008, it's reasonable to conclude that the United States has reached the 50 million mark." Claim: Rick Perry Says there have been 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade was decided.

A: Rick Perry says there have been 50 million abortions since Roe
****
Q: 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

A: 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.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story doesn’t address costs for any of the treatment options discussed. Is MBSR comparable to CBT? Does insurance cover either treatment option? The story tells readers what percentage of study participants who got MBSR treatment reported improvement in pain, as well as what percentage of MBSR participants “reported improvement in the activities they could do.” It also offered the same numbers for participants who received CBT and for the control group, which received typical medical care for this condition. These details deserve a Satisfactory rating. But: The story notes: “The study did caution that 30 of the 103, or about one-third, of the participants in the meditation group reported an ‘adverse event,’ most often an increase in pain due to yoga.” It’s good to see that included. Since the story is effectively comparing MBSR to CBT and conventional treatment, it would also have been worth noting “adverse events” for those groups in the study. According to the study, 10 percent of the CBT group also experienced “adverse events,” and no adverse events were mentioned for the control group. Defining “adverse events” would also have been good, since it’s not clear whether they mean momentary pain or a debilitating flare-up of long-term pain. According to the study, the pain–for both MBSR and CBT groups–was “mostly temporary” and no “serious” adverse events were reported. Those things are worth mentioning. (It’s also worth finding out what “mostly” and “serious” mean.) The story describes the study in detail, explicitly stating the study size and the absolute percentages in each arm that had benefit. It also acknowledged the study was randomized. We’ll count this as sufficient for Satisfactory, keeping in mind the following: As explained in the summary above, the story doesn’t make clear MBSR and CBT were used in addition to conventional medical treatment, rather than instead of medical treatment. The story didn’t mention that the study excluded participants with what the study authors term “a specific diagnosis (eg, spinal stenosis).” In other words, the study did not address treatments for back pain caused by issues like a herniated disc or rheumatoid arthritis. Many readers have these conditions, and should be informed that these study results may not be applicable to their situation. Lastly, we would have welcomed a discussion of the high rates of success within the control group. Forty-four percent in that group experienced a gain in functionality, for example. That seems pretty good! What do the researchers have to say about that? No disease mongering here. However, we did want to point out that the story “fear mongers” in a sense, by stating back pain is “one reason why more and more people are addicted to painkillers.” The story insinuates that these other treatment methods–especially meditation–could help with that. And maybe they could. But the study itself says “No overall differences in treatment effects were observed for…self-reported use of medications for back pain.” So why the mention of painkiller addiction? Conflicts of interest don’t appear to be an issue here, and the story includes statements from an accompanying editorial in JAMA, which was written by experts unaffiliated with the research. This squeaks by as Satisfactory, though it should be noted that most of this material was available via news releases (see below). The story is effectively all about comparing alternatives, though–again–it should have made clear that MBSR and CBT were used in conjunction with conventional medical treatment, and it left out discussion of other well-known non-medication treatment methods, such as exercise. It’s not clear from the story whether MBSR is widely available, is available in mainly metropolitan areas, or is a relatively new field that is still uncommon. The story does quote from a separate editorial in JAMA that says health care systems “should provide access to affordable mind-body therapies,” implying that it’s not widely available. Is this the case, or can it be easily accessed? Given the constraints of a brief news story, the piece does a nice job of articulating the differences between MBSR and CBT. It would have been even more helpful for the story to mention previous studies on the impact of MBSR and CBT on low back pain, to help us understand how novel this new study is. There is little in the story that is not found in the two news releases issued on this study. (Those releases can be found here and here.) Claim: Mindful meditation may be the answer to relieving chronic back pain, study suggests

A:
This story focuses on a JAMA study investigating whether mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is as effective as cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and standard treatment at helping patients reduce lower back pain. The story does a good job of quantifying the benefits and risks seen in the study. However, there were three things we wanted to call special attention to:   Lower back pain is an extremely common problem around the world. For example, a 2012 paper reported that lower back pain was responsible for more than three percent of all emergency room visits in the United States. An earlier paper found that health care expenditures in the U.S. directly attributable to back pain came to around $26 billion. When we consider the number of people affected by back pain, and the related economic impact, it’s clear that any research that offers insight into how to effectively treat lower back pain is worth covering.
****