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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Novacyt said the FDA’s approval meant that hospitals and laboratories in the United States would be able to use the test for clinical diagnosis of the coronavirus, and that the test was now available for immediate distribution in the U.S. market. “The U.S. FDA EUA authorization is another important endorsement of the performance and quality of our COVID-19 test and demonstrates once again Novacyt’s growing role in tackling this pandemic,” said Novacyt CEO Graham Mullis. Claim: Healthcare group Novacyt wins U.S. approval for coronavirus test.
[EX A]: Novacyt, a healthcare company specializing in clinical diagnostics, announced on Monday approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulator for its product aimed at testing for coronavirus.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Hanan al-Hroub, a Palestinian teacher scheduled to speak at a Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting dinner event on 20 September 2016, drew criticism from Republicans because her husband, Omar al-Hroub, is a Palestinian official who served 10 years in an Israeli prison for supplying chemicals used in a deadly bombing attack in Hebron that killed six Israelis in 1980 — especially given the close proximity (in both time and distance) of the speaking engagement to recent bomb attacks in New York and New Jersey. For example, Raj Shah, ​deputy ​communications director of the Republican National Committee, stated that:  In the wake of this weekend’s attacks, granting a platform to the spouse of a terrorist bomb-maker just miles away from where explosives were detonated days ago is an insult to the victims and makes a mockery of the Clinton Foundation. Donald Trump’s campaign similarly issued a press release titled “Statement on Clinton Foundation Honoring Wife of Palestinian Terrorist,” objecting to al-Hroub’s appearance at the Clinton Global Initiative dinner: Today’s report that the Clinton Foundation is feting the wife of a Palestinian man convicted of helping bomb innocent Israeli citizens is deeply disturbing, especially in the wake of this weekend’s attacks. The decision to honor the wife of a terrorist by Hillary Clinton’s foundation shows a complete lack of judgment and a callousness that should disqualify her from holding the presidency. Mrs. al-Hroub has become famous in her own right, independently of her husband, as described in a March 2016 Guardian profile of her achievements that delved into her experiences and her path to worldwide recognition: Hroub only began working as a teacher in 2007. After leaving school, she was forced to abandon her plans for further education when Palestinian universities closed during the first intifada, or uprising, between 1987 and 1993. Instead she got married and had five children. In 2000, when her youngest was established at school, Hroub resumed her education part-time at Al-Quds University. Within months, her husband, Omar, and two of her daughters were shot at by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint near Bethlehem. Omar was injured in the shoulder and the girls were traumatised. “This incident changed my life. We were in shock. My children were suffering, and the teachers were not trained to deal with trauma. At that point I decided to commit my life to teaching.” She vehemently rejects Israeli claims that Palestinian schools incite children against Israel. “My message to those who say that is that all children should be protected from violence. I had a very hard childhood, and I don’t want these children to experience the same. Once a cycle of violence is created, it’s very hard to break.” Prior to the Clinton Foundation-related controversy, the Associated Press reported on a similar issue surrounding Mrs. al-Hroub’s March 2016 receipt of a global award for excellence in education: The U.K.-based foundation that awarded a Palestinian schoolteacher a $1 million prize for preaching nonviolence is sticking by its choice following revelations that the woman’s husband participated in an attack that killed at least six Israelis three decades ago. The Varkey Foundation awarded Hanan al-Hroub its Global Teacher Prize. In its selection, it cited her slogan “No to Violence” and her efforts in protecting Palestinian schoolchildren from the effects of living in a conflict zone. She had developed a book called “We Play and Learn” focusing on the importance of playing, trust, respect, honesty and literacy. However, her husband, Omar, served time in Israeli prison, convicted as an accomplice in a bombing attack that killed six Israelis as they were walking home from sabbath prayers in the West Bank city of Hebron in 1980. According to an Associated Press account at the time, Omar al-Hroub was a chemist who provided chemicals needed for making the bombs … In a statement, the Varkey Foundation said it does not look into the conduct of candidates’ relatives and that the teacher was committed to nonviolence. “As a point of principle, we only look at the qualities, achievements and conduct of the candidates themselves … As Hanan al-Hroub has said herself, she has spent her whole life dealing with the effects of violence on children at close hand and every day she works toward a world where children, wherever they come from, can grow up peacefully,” it added. “She has spent her entire career teaching the principle of nonviolence. She believes in nonviolence in all its forms and in all circumstances.” Qadura Faris, the director of the Palestinian prisoners’ association, said that after serving a 10-year sentence, Omar al-Hroub accepted the 1993 Oslo interim peace accord with Israel, served as a deputy Cabinet minister in the Palestinian Authority and supports a two-state solution with Israel. He said al-Hroub remains a senior Palestinian official who is close to President Mahmoud Abbas and “believes in his peaceful approach.” Al-Hroub’s biography, as presented among those of the speakers at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)’s Annual Meeting from 19 to 21 September 2016, reads: Winner of the 2016 Global Teacher Prize, an initiative of the Varkey Foundation, Hanan Al Hroub grew up in the Palestinian refugee camp, Bethlehem, where she was regularly exposed to acts of violence. She went into primary education after her children were left deeply traumatized by a shooting incident they witnessed on their way home from school. Her experiences in meetings and consultations to discuss her children’s behavior, development and academic performance in the years that followed led Al Hroub to try to help others who, having grown up in similar circumstances, require special handling at school. With so many troubled children in the region, Palestinian classrooms can be tense environments. Al Hroub embraces the slogan “No to Violence” and uses a specialized teaching approach she developed herself. Al Hroub has shared her perspective at conferences, meetings and teacher training seminars. Claim: Hanan al-Hroub, whose husband was jailed for providing chemicals used in making bombs that killed Israelis, was invited to speak at a Clinton Global Initiative dinner.
[EX A]: Hanan al-Hroub was one of several dozen people invited to speak during the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting; she was not singled out to be “honored” or “feted” by that event.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire has been awash in claims about abortion and women’s health issues in recent days. One claim by incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen caught our eye. Shaheen is facing a challenge from former Republican Sen. Scott Brown. In a news release from her campaign, Shaheen said: ""I have always supported a woman’s right to choose because I know women should be making health care decisions in consultation with their doctors and their families, not their employer. Scott Brown’s record is clear: When it counts, he doesn’t stand up for women’s reproductive rights and economic security. He co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control or even mammograms. New Hampshire women can’t trust Scott Brown, and his record is move evidence that he is wrong for New Hampshire."" We noticed two claims that are related, but distinct enough to analyze separately. First, would the legislation in question have allowed employers deny women coverage for birth control? And would it have allowed employers to deny coverage for mammograms? We’ll look at the birth control claim here, and mammograms in a separate fact-check. It turns out the two issues differ a good bit. In a different Shaheen campaign news release, the campaign explained its sourcing by writing, ""FACT: Scott Brown both co-sponsored and voted for the Blunt Amendment that would let employers deny women access to a range of healthcare services, including contraception and coverage for mammograms."" The amendment in question was proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. It was tabled -- that is, dispensed with -- by a 51-48 vote in which a simple majority was required. Among those who voted ""nay"" -- that is, those who wanted to keep it under consideration -- was Brown, then representing Massachusetts in the Senate. He also co-sponsored a predecessor measure, S.1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. So Shaheen’s camp is correct that Brown acted in support of this measure. But what did the amendment say? It acted to widen the scope of acceptable actions for opting out of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on religious or moral grounds. It focuses on mandates within the law for preventive services, called the ""essential health benefits package."" Specifically, the amendment said employers cannot be required to cover ""specific items or services"" that are ""contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan."" We agree with the Shaheen campaign that the provision is drawn broadly. While it’s not targeted at abortion or birth control per se, it is so expansively written that there’s little doubt it could be invoked on behalf of those who oppose abortion and certain types of birth control. As we explained in our other fact check, we find no evidence that anyone has expressed a religious or moral objection to mammograms. But the case that the Blunt Amendment would have affected access to birth control is stronger. Some opponents of abortion have supported opt-out rights for employers who oppose certain types of birth control that they say work like abortifacients. In fact, this was the issue at the heart of the closely watched 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. In that case, a 5-4 majority ruled that a closely held, private corporation, such as the craft retailer Hobby Lobby, could decline on religious grounds to pay for certain kinds of contraceptives otherwise mandated in employee health coverage by the Affordable Care Act. The only quibble we have with the phrasing of Shaheen’s claim is that the Blunt Amendment didn’t single out birth control, which is the impression one could easily get from her statement. But since the amendment was written so broadly -- and since birth control has long been at issue for religious or moral reasons -- we don’t see this as a significant problem. Our ruling Shaheen said Brown ""co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control."" The amendment, which Brown supported, was written loosely enough to allow a religious-conscience opt-out for birth control -- an issue about which there has been a longstanding policy debate on religious and moral grounds." Claim: "Jeanne Shaheen Says Scott Brown ""co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control."
[EX A]:
"Shaheen said Brown ""co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control."" The amendment, which Brown supported, was written loosely enough to allow a religious-conscience opt-out for birth control -- an issue about which there has been a longstanding policy debate on religious and moral grounds."