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: "Emily's List is stoking the abortion debate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District race with a fundraising email saying Republican incumbent Mike Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" Emily's List -- a political organization that supports the election of Democratic women who support abortion rights -- has endorsed Coffman's opponent, state Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat. Its mailer focused on reproductive rights, abortion and Roe v. Wade. In the email, titled ""2016 goal: A Congress that fights for women and families,"" Emily's List said, ""We wish Congress was less like this"" -- citing Mike Coffman's co-sponsorship of the 2011 bill -- ""and more like this … Morgan Carroll sponsored a bill to make emergency contraception available to sexual assault survivors."" We wanted to check the accuracy of Emily's List's characterization of Coffman's role in the legislation. Coffman did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which attempted to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape"" -- and not rape in broader terms. Critics said the ""forcible rape"" language could rule out other forms of sexual assault that are considered rape, including statutory rape, attacks where women are drugged or threatened, and date rapes. Facing a backlash from women's groups, Republicans amended the bill in committee to remove the word ""forcible"" and make the exemption for ""rape."" Coffman wasn't on this committee and didn't vote on the removal. ""The bill was amended in committee, and Congressman Coffman supported the amended bill on the floor,"" a Coffman campaign spokesman later said. Congressional records show that Coffman voted for the amended bill in a floor vote, which passed the House but not the Senate. In recent years, Coffman has tempered his position on abortion in one of the country's most competitive ""swing"" districts, which is nearly evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents. In 2012, he said, ""I am against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother."" But a year later, Coffman said that while he supported a House bill to limit late-term abortions, ""I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this legislation."" Coffman's Democratic opponent, Morgan Carroll, had blunt criticism of his co-sponsoring the 2011 bill's original ""forcible rape"" language. ""Rape is about the lack of consent -- not the degree of force -- and this definition takes us backwards,"" Carroll told Denver7. ""I unequivocally support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body, including her health care,"" she said. Coffman's spokeswoman complained that political opponents have repeatedly raised the 2011 bill and ""will twist the facts any way they can in an attempt to mischaracterize and demonize Rep. Coffman."" Our ruling Emily’s List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation, we're rating this claim . Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill." Claim: "As part of legislative fights over abortion rights, ""Mike Coffman co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."
[EX A]: "Emily’s List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation. Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill."

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Keytruda is already approved as a cost-effective treatment in melanoma and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also on Dec. 2 approved its use in the treatment of lung cancer patients who had started on chemotherapy, after Merck & Co cut the price further for the NHS. But trial data so far on the survival benefit of Keytruda as an initial lung cancer treatment has not been reliable enough,   according to NICE’s draft guidance, which will be subject to public consultation until 21 March. “The exact size of the overall survival gain for Keytruda compared to the current standard of care was uncertain because of the immaturity of the data,” a NICE spokeswoman said. Keytruda has proved effective in fighting non-small cell lung cancer in patients with high levels of a protein called PD-L1, which makes them more receptive to immunotherapy. The average cost of a course of treatment in Britain is around 29,000 pounds ($36,000) at the full list price but the NHS will pay less after getting a confidential discount. ($1 = 0.8042 pounds) Claim: UK rejects Merck's Keytruda as initial treatment for lung cancer.
[EX A]: Britain’s healthcare watchdog NICE, which assesses the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments, has stopped short of recommending the use by the National Health Service (NHS) of Merck & Co Inc’s immunotherapy drug Keytruda in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, after giving the go-ahead in December for patients who had prior treatment.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Not applicable – the cost of coffee is not in question. The online and on-air stories still used inappropriate causal  language – as the WebMD story did – in describing the results of a study that can’t establish cause-and-effect. The online story said ""may cut risk"" and ""may lower the risk."" Adding the qualifying ""may"" doesn’t detract from the inappropriate causal verb that follows. The on-air story used the term ""benefit"" when benefit can not be established in this kind of study. Inappropriate. Inaccurate. At least this story did what the WebMD story didn’t do in discussing some of the potential harms from drinking a lot of coffee. At least the story commented briefly on the nature of the study:  ""They looked at nine existing studies and analyzed how much coffee was consumed by more than 5,000 cancer patients and about 9,000 healthy people."" But it never stated explicitly that this kind of study CAN NOT establish cause and effect. That’s still a major shortcoming of such stories. It only takes a line to do so, and we’ve provided some sample lines in a primer on this topic elsewhere on our site. No overt disease-mongering in the story. One of the researchers and two independent sources were interviewed – something WebMD didn’t do. The story didn’t comment – as the WebMD story did – on other factors analyzed in the study such as tea, fruits and vegetables. Not applicable – the availability of coffee is not in question. The story at least briefly mentions other coffee research: ""Other recent studies suggest coffee may have beneficial effects in other diseases like dementia, diabetes, liver and Parkinson’s disease. However, coffee alone may not be the answer according to some experts."" Because of the number of sources cited, it’s clear this did not rely on a news release." Claim: Coffee may cut risk for some cancers
[EX A]:
"What basics are wrong? The on-air and online stories still used terms like ""benefit"" and ""lowers risk"" – sometimes with the qualifier ""may cut risk"" which still doesn’t cover up the inaccuracy of using causal language to explain results that can’t prove cause-and-effect. Some of the online comments on the CNN website provide a glimpse of how readers react to such stories:    ""i love how an article starts with something positive and then slowly becomes a little gloomy. so is it good or not? i’m still where i was with coffee, it’s all in moderation, it ain’t gonna solve your health woes."" ""The statistics book in a class I’m taking right know uses coffee as an example of statistics run amok. It seems coffee has caused all the cancers and cures them at the same time."" ""Could it be that instead of having mysterious compounds, coffee drinkers just drink more coffee than they drink alcohol or smoke?"" ""I am so f-ing sick of these studies, or more precicesly how these ""risk factors"" are interpreted as ""facts"" by newspaper headlines. If you can’t explain why something happens other than surmising, stop wasting our time."" ""…correlation IS NOT causation!!!! So people that drink 4 or more cups of coffee have a lower incidence of two certain types of head and neck cancers, and this is supposed to mean that coffee is actually ""warding off"" these cancers???"""