Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

[Q]: Paragraph: "Speaking out against the exclusion of Planned Parenthood clinics from a Texas family planning program for low-income women, five Democratic legislators aired a statistic indicating that the group is a crucial provider. ""Nearly 45 percent of the women who receive health screenings through this program do so at a Planned Parenthood health center,"" said a commentary in the March 6, 2012, Austin American-Statesman by Austin state Reps. Elliott Naishtat, Dawnna Dukes, Eddie Rodriguez, Mark Strama and Donna Howard. We looked into that figure amid debate over the state’s decision, which led the Obama administration to set in motion a phased-in cutoff of about $30 million in annual federal funds for the Texas Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which has served tens of thousands of women a year since its launch in 2007. To participate in the program, providers may not perform elective abortions. Since the program’s start, dozens of Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas have qualified because they don’t provide abortions and are legally separated from Planned Parenthood clinics that do. That is changing, however. The Texas health and human services commissioner signed a rule in February 2012 barring entities affiliated with abortion providers from the program, which had the effect of disqualifying Planned Parenthood health centers that do not provide abortions. In response, the Obama administration declined to renew the program, arguing that Texas’ new rule violates federal law by restricting women’s abilities to choose their own caregivers. Perry has pledged to continue the program with state money — and without Planned Parenthood. Under the program, participating women may receive health screenings, including a Pap smear, during the one family planning exam per fiscal year that the program covers. Examples of other screenings, related to family planning, that women can get during their visit: breast exam, pregnancy test, routine urinalysis, as well as testing for diabetes, sexually transmitted diseases and high blood pressure. Screenings are not covered outside of the annual exam. The program also pays for birth control such as pills and condoms. Naishtat aide Nancy Walker told us by email that the ""nearly 45 percent"" figure came from ""multiple sources,"" including the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. She said the agency told her that in fiscal 2010, about 46 percent of clients in the state’s Women’s Health Program had received services from Planned Parenthood — which, we noticed, is a wider description than the legislators’ reference solely to ""health screenings."" Commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman told us that the state has not compiled data on where women in the program receive health screenings. Asked about the figure that Naishtat’s aide cited from the commission, Goodman told us that the figure is based on a data analysis for fiscal 2010 — Sept. 1, 2009, through Aug. 31, 2010 — showing that of the 106,711 women who were served by the program, 49,162 received a service from a Planned Parenthood clinic. That’s 46.1 percent. We wondered, though, if it’s correct to assume that all women in the program received health screenings, as the Democrats’ article suggests. Goodman speculated that it might be, pointing out that all women in the program are entitled to an annual exam with health screenings. Also, the Democrats’ article leaves the impression that the referenced women solely depended on Planned Parenthood clinics for their screenings. That might not be so. According to the commission’s figures, 27,256 of the 49,162 Women’s Health Program clients who were served by Planned Parenthood in fiscal 2010 also received a Women’s Health Program service from a provider not linked to Planned Parenthood. In a previous fact-check, we laid out a couple of possible explanations for those women being served by both Planned Parenthood and another type of provider. For one, some portion of the 27,256 women may have had their exams and screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic and then any tests processed at an outside lab. In those cases — and the state couldn’t tell us how many of them there were — the only ""services"" that a woman would have received from a non-Planned Parenthood provider was lab testing. These women would not affect the Democrats’ statistic, since they received their screenings at Planned Parenthood. But under the program, it’s also possible for women to switch providers during the year and receive another exam and screenings. So some portion of the 27,256 women may have received screenings from both a Planned Parenthood and a non-Planned Parenthood provider during fiscal 2010. And if the number were large enough, the percentage of women in the program who received their screenings exclusively from a Planned Parenthood clinic would be smaller than 46 percent. Goodman told us the state has not teased out the detailed data that would settle this issue. Our ruling The Democratic legislators wrote that nearly 45 percent of women who received health screenings through the targeted family-planning program in fiscal 2010 had them at Planned Parenthood clinics. That could be so, but we identified a couple of unsettled hitches. According to the state, 46 percent of the cited program’s clients went to a Planned Parenthood clinic, but the state has no breakdown of the number of women who were screened overall, which is what the Democrats focused on. Also, the Democrats’ statement implies that 46 percent of women rely on Planned Parenthood exclusively for screenings, but some women included in the 46 percent could have had screenings at a different kind of clinic, though (again) such details are not available." Claim: Nearly 45 percent of the women who receive health screenings through (the Women’s Health Program) do so at a Planned Parenthood health center.
[A]: 1


[Q]: Paragraph: "In metro Atlanta, the land of smog alerts and farmland-turned-to-suburbs, one local county makes a bold claim about its efforts to be environmentally conscious. DeKalb County, its website says, is ""the greenest county in America."" Let's put that on some recycled paper and send it to each of the county's estimated 750,000 residents. DeKalb's communications director, Burke Brennan, sent PolitiFact Georgia an e-mail making the case for the county. It includes: ""In DeKalb County, we are taking the lead on sustainability ...  we are one step closer to being the greenest county in America,"" DeKalb County Chief Executive Officer Burrell Ellis said in 2009 when the county was honored by the ARC. Many folks we discussed this claim with used phrases like ""bold"" or ""ambitious"" to describe DeKalb's audacity, not willing to publicly dismiss it. Some were willing to criticize the claim. ""That's all a good case for them to be one of the greenest counties in Georgia,"" said Mark Woodall, Georgia chapter chairman of the Sierra Club, which claims to be the largest grassroots environmental organization in the state. ""DeKalb being the greenest county in America seems pretty unthinkable."" Being ""green,"" means many things these days. Some organizations have occasionally released surveys rankings America's greenest cities, but we found few similar rankings of counties. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non-profit organization that works to improve health and health care for Americans, earlier this year looked at the environmental health of each U.S. county. One category was physical health. The foundation used data put together by researchers from the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine the physical health of each county. The criteria included how many days the air was unhealthy, the number of days the air was unhealthy due to ozone, access to healthy foods and how many liquor stores were in a county. DeKalb ranked near the bottom of Georgia counties, 153rd, in terms of physical health. Some categories that DeKalb is bragging about are difficult to compare. In other areas, such as the number of LEED-certified buildings, Dekalb has competition. Gwinnett had three LEED-certifiied structures, according to the U.S. Green Building Council. DeKalb is an Energy Star partner -- a federal effort to protect the environment through energy-efficient practices -- but so are Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties and the city of Atlanta. On hiking and biking trails, DeKalb may run into some argument about having the most in Georgia. Cobb County, for example, lists about 75 miles of trails within its cities and unincorporated areas. It was suggested we look at Arlington County, Va. to find another county that could make a case it is greener than DeKalb. The county has a page on its website with more than a dozen awards and recognition for its sustainable community and environmental efforts. Arlington won two National Association of Counties Achievement Awards this year for its recycling efforts. That organization also named Arlington its Outstanding Civil Engineering Project award in 2006 for its Green Building Program. Other counties, like Boulder, Colo., have goals such as reducing outdoor water use by 50 percent by using indigenous plants and recycling 50 percent of construction waste. DeKalb's case was muddied in December when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined $453,000 for 836 sewage spills over the last five years. The EPA estimates there are about 40,000 spills from the nation's 25,000 sewage systems a year. California officials reported about 2,000 spills into the San Francisco Bay in 2008. Brennan noted the day after the fine was announced, county commissioners voted 6-1 to spend $1.345 billion to make repairs to its water and sewer system, nearly twice as much money as the EPA recommended. DeKalb taxpayers will pay higher water and sewer bills to help fund the work. Despite the fine, Brennan stuck by DeKalb's claim. ""Nobody here is claiming perfection, but based on the programs, awards, designations and initiatives DeKalb has in place and ongoing, I am sticking with the motto 'DeKalb is the greenest county in America,' "" Brennan told us in an e-mail. ""After all, 'Cowboy Capital of the World' was already taken,"" added Brennan, referring to Oakdale, Calif.  DeKalb has certainly tried to make its mark as an environmentally conscious county. But DeKalb's claim of being the ""greenest county"" in the nation ignores critical facts that would give a visitor to its web site a different impression." Claim: The Greenest County in America.
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: "Dr. George Flinn is well known in Memphis as a radiologist, radio station magnate and a big-spending, self-funding Republican political candidate who is running for Congress again this summer, this time in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. Fewer know him as an inventor with patents on file in Washington, but that’s what he claims in a commercial he’s airing as he seeks to defeat 2010 GOP nominee Charlotte Bergmann. The winner in Thursday’s Aug. 2 primary will face the winner of the primary between incumbent U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen and school board member Tomeka Hart. The commercial boldly claimsthat Flinn is ""a doctor whose patents in ultrasound have revolutionized modern medicine, whose innovations have saved lives throughout the world."" Based on the scant evidence we were able to discover and our lack of deep knowledge in the history of ultrasound technology, we are narrowing the focus to whether Flinn does indeed hold patents in ultrasound technology that might have revolutionized modern medicine. The only Flinn patent we were able to find was awarded on July 3, 2007, and it is not for ultrasound technology. Flinn and two others received patent No. 7,238,370 B2 for their invention of a substance made of pumice and an aqueous surfactant (like a detergent) that experiments showed increased skin thickness and gave it a ""more youthful appearance."" It was also tested on shaved guinea pigs. Its claim is that it prevents and treats ""photoaging"" of skin. Whatever the usefulness of this substance, we’re comfortable concluding it has not revolutionized modern medicine. It took Flinn’s campaign more than a week to provide information about other innovations the campaign believes backs up Flinn’s claims. OnThursday evening, July 26, campaign manager Kristi Stanley sent along three acknowledgement letters from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirming receipt of applications for patents. Not patents, but applications for patents. The letters state that the information Flinn provided (which was not provided to PolitiFact) ""will be examined for patentability."" The letters also extend Flinn the right under federal law to seek a patent in foreign countries. Nothing that Stanley provided indicates Flinn sought foreign patents. She did note that Flinn also was involved in obtaining patents while employed by the National Institutes of Health that are held, not by him, but by that government agency. So let’s look at the three patent applications, according to the initial letters from the Patent and Trademark Office dated in May and June of this year. One (Customer No. 062439) is for ""Chemotherapy Treatment Using Microspheres to Deliver a High Concentration of a Drug to a Tumor."" The letter provided by Stanley provides no other information about the patent itself, just details about Flinn’s rights. It does not appear to deal with ultrasound. The second is titled ""Process for an Improved Galactogram Procedure,"" with, again, no supporting description or detail. The third: ""Color Encoding Method for Ultrasound Images."" Again: No detail. We could explain that galactography is the examination of the breast by mammography and, specifically, examination of the milk ducts, or that microspheres are particles smaller than one millimeter in diameter. But it seems we can make short work of this analysis by saying that, although Flinn claims to deserve the patent for them, these are not patented inventions and he only sought them after he was deeply involved in this congressional campaign. If the technologies are being employed in medicine to demonstrative salubrious effect, it isn’t because they are his patents because the patents have not yet been granted. When contacted initially, the campaign indicated it was eager for us to examine the claim but did not provide the kind of supportive documentation that would establish its veracity. Instead, the documentation establishes the application for patents. But Flinn’s commercials flatly claim he his patents in ultrasound technology revolutionized modern medicine, when the record shows he he only applied for patents several months after this congressional campaign was under way. That kind of deliberate deception of voters earns this claim a" Claim: "George Flinn Says his ""patents in ultrasound have revolutionized modern medicine."
[A]:
0