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'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Calls to boycott the National Rifle Association intensified in the days following a school shooting in Parkland, Florida that left seventeen people dead on 14 February 2018. In response, a number of companies responded by ending partnership programs that provided discounts to NRA members:  Shortly after Delta announced that it would stop offering discounts to NRA members, some argued that Planned Parenthood should be the actual subject of nationwide boycotts, despite not being involved directly or indirectly with the Parkland, Florida shooting in any way. One meme summed up that argument by stating without attribution that Planned Parenthood kills hundreds of babies a day, while the NRA has never directly killed anyone:  This number appears to be derived from figures provided by the organization in 2015, which said that Planned Parenthood offices had performed 323,999 abortions in total the year before. However, that interpretation is dependent on subjective interpretations of when life supposedly begins; abortions are not counted as a “cause of death” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Georgia State Senator Michael Williams took issue with Delta’s decision (the company is headquartered in Atlanta) and during an appearance on CNN said that the airline should also rescind its discounts for other organizations: If they’re going to pull the discount for NRA members, why not pull it for Planned Parenthood or some of the left organizations out there? When CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Williams what evidence he had that Delta Air Lines offered discounted rates to Planned Parenthood members, adding that the network had examined these allegations and found no information to verify the claim, Williams explained that he “looked it up on Google” and did not know of the exact source — but that he would provide it at a later date:  We searched for any credible sources to back the claim that Delta Air Lines offers a discount to members of Planned Parenthood (along with the official definition of what a member of Planned Parenthood might be: Did he mean donors to the nonprofit? Patients who do not donate? Some combination of the above? Is there a membership card?) but all we found were unverified claims in the comment sections of various articles and in random social media messages:  Shortly after Williams appeared on CNN, Planned Parenthood denied his claims: Being a Planned Parenthood supporter doesn’t come with corporate perks and discounts. People stand with Planned Parenthood because they support reproductive health and rights. https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As — Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) February 28, 2018  On 28 February 2018, Williams released a statement on Twitter:  This statement offers no supporting evidence and, in fact, does nothing to address the original claim Williams made during his CNN appearance. Instead, it moves the goalposts completely by saying that while Delta does not contribute directly to Planned Parenthood, it indirectly supports the organization instead, by donating to groups such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, we found some holes in this argument too. For example, American Airlines, not Delta Air Lines, is the official partner of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Delta does host an annual fundraiser for breast cancer research, but the airline donates the proceeds to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, not Susan G. Komen: Last month, Delta celebrated its 12th anniversary of the “Breast Cancer One” survivor flight, kicking off the airline’s Breast Cancer Awareness month throughout October and continuing the tradition of building awareness and raising funds for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. This year’s flight honored 140 breast cancer survivors who flew from New York to Los Angeles. Festivities began with an event at the gate in JFK before the pink plane made its way to LAX, where survivors and attendees enjoyed another gatehouse event and an overnight stay, including dinner, hotel accommodations and a meet-and-greet with one of BCRF’s world-renowned researchers, Dr. Sofia Merajver from the University of Michigan. It is entirely possible that Delta has contributed to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, but this group is not a “Delta partner,” nor is it the main benefactor of their cancer research fundraiser. Williams doubled down on his claim that Delta was partnered with the Susan G. Komen Foundation when he shared a photograph of a Delta plane painted with pink ribbons and linked to a set of images on the web site FlashPointAgency:  FlashPointAgency does say that this plane was designed as part of Delta’s work with the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, these images appear to be mislabeled. Another image in this set of photographs shows two women standing in front of a wall of logos for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. As we noted above, Delta does frequently host fundraisers to support BCRF: Claim: Delta Air Lines gives members of Planned Parenthood discounted rates on air travel.

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Hillary Clinton is in the political crosshairs as the author of a new book alleges improper financial ties between her public and personal life. At issue in conservative author Peter Schweizer’s forthcoming book Clinton Cash are donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation during the four years she served as secretary of state. George Stephanopoulos used an interview with Schweizer on ABC This Week to point out what other nonpartisan journalists have found: There is no ""smoking gun"" showing that donations to the foundation influenced her foreign policy decisions. Still, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the donations are ""clearly illegal"" under federal law. In his view, a donation by a foreign government to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state is the same as money sent directly to her, he said, even though she did not join the foundation’s board until she left her post. ""The Constitution of the United States says you cannot take money from foreign governments without explicit permission of the Congress. They wrote that in there because they knew the danger of corrupting our system by foreign money is enormous,"" Gingrich said. ""You had a sitting secretary of state whose husband radically increased his speech fees, you have a whole series of dots on the wall now where people gave millions of dollars — oh, by the way, they happen to get taken care of by the State Department."" He continued, ""My point is they took money from foreign governments while she was secretary of State. That is clearly illegal."" PunditFact wanted to know if a criminal case against Clinton is that open and shut. Is what happened ""clearly illegal""? A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation certainly disagreed, calling Gingrich’s accusation ""a baseless leap"" because Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while serving as a senator or secretary of state. We did not hear from Gingrich by our deadline. Foundation basics Former President Clinton started the William J. Clinton Foundation in 2001, the year after Hillary Clinton won her first term as a New York senator. The foundation works with non-governmental organizations, the private sector and governments around the world on health, anti-poverty, HIV/AIDS and climate change initiatives. Spokesman Craig Minassian said it’s reasonable for the foundation to accept money from foreign governments because of the global scope of its programs, and the donations are usually in the form of tailored grants for specific missions. Hillary Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while she was a senator or secretary of state. Her appointment to the latter post required Senate confirmation and came with an agreement between the White House and Clinton Foundation that the foundation would be more transparent about its donors. According to the 2008 memorandum of understanding, the foundation would release information behind new donations and could continue to collect donations from countries with which it had existing relationships or running grant programs. If countries with existing contributions significantly stepped up their contributions, or if a new foreign government wanted to donate, the State Department would have to approve. Clinton took an active role in fundraising when she left the State Department and the foundation became the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013. But she left the board when she announced her run for the presidency in April 2015. The Emoluments Clause So how does Gingrich come up with the claim that Clinton Foundation donations are ""clearly illegal"" and unconstitutional? The answer is something known as the Emoluments Clause. A few conservative websites have made similar arguments in recent days, including the Federalist blog. The Emoluments Clause, found in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, reads in part: ""No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."" The framers came up with this clause to prevent the government and leaders from granting or receiving titles of nobility and to keep leaders free of external influence. (An emolument, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is ""the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites."") Lest you think the law is no longer relevant, the Pentagon ethics office in 2013 warned employees the ""little known provision"" applies to all federal employees and military retirees. There’s no mention of spouses in the memo. J. Peter Pham, director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center, said interpretation of the clause has evolved since its adoption at the Constitutional Convention, when the primary concern was about overseas diplomats not seeking gifts from foreign powers they were dealing with. The Defense Department memo, in his view, goes beyond what the framers envisioned for the part of the memo dealing with gifts. ""I think that, aside from the unambiguous parts, the burden would be on those invoking the clause to show actual causality that would be in violation of the clause,"" Pham said. Expert discussion We asked seven different constitutional law experts on whether the Clinton Foundation foreign donations were ""clearly illegal"" and a violation of the Emoluments Clause. We did not reach a consensus with their responses, though a majority thought the layers of separation between the foundation and Hillary Clinton work against Gingrich. The American system often distinguishes between public officers and private foundations, ""even if real life tends to blur some of those distinctions,"" said American University law professor Steve Vladeck. Vladeck added that the Emoluments Clause has never been enforced. ""I very much doubt that the first case in its history would be because a foreign government made charitable donations to a private foundation controlled by a government employee’s relative,"" he said. ""Gingrich may think that giving money to the Clinton Foundation and giving money to then-Secretary Clinton are the same thing. Unfortunately for him, for purposes of federal regulations, statutes, and the Constitution, they’re formally — and, thus, legally — distinct."" Robert Delahunty, a University of St. Thomas constitutional law professor who worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1989 to 2003, also called Gingrich’s link between Clinton and the foreign governments’ gifts to the Clinton Foundation as ""implausible, and in any case I don’t think we have the facts to support it."" ""The truth is that we establish corporate bodies like the Clinton Foundation because the law endows these entities with a separate and distinct legal personhood,"" Delahunty said. John Harrison, University of Virginia law professor and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 1990 to 1993, pointed to the Foreign Gifts Act, 5 U.S.C. 7432, which sets rules for how the Emoluments Clause should work in practice. The statute spells out the minimal value for acceptable gifts, and says it applies to spouses of the individuals covered, but ""it doesn’t say anything about receipt of foreign gifts by other entities such as the Clinton Foundation."" ""I don’t know whether there’s any other provision of federal law that would treat a foreign gift to the foundation as having made to either of the Clintons personally,"" Harrison said, who added that agencies have their own supplemental rules for this section, and he did not know if the State Department addressed this. Other experts on the libertarian side of the scale thought Gingrich was more right in his assertion. Clinton violates the clause because of its intentionally broad phrasing about gifts of ""any kind whatever,"" which would cover indirect gifts via the foundation, said Dave Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University and research director at the libertarian Independence Institute. Kopel also brought up bribery statutes, which would require that a gift had some influence in Clinton’s decision while secretary of state. Delahunty thought Kopel’s reasoning would have ""strange consequences,"" such as whether a state-owned airline flying Bill Clinton to a conference of former heads of state counted as a gift to Hillary Clinton. Our ruling Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation ""took money from from foreign governments while (Hillary Clinton) was secretary of state. It is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."" A clause in the Constitution does prohibit U.S. officials such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from receiving gifts, or emoluments, from foreign governments. But the gifts in this case were donations from foreign governments that went to the Clinton Foundation, not Hillary Clinton. She was not part of the foundation her husband founded while she was secretary of state. Does that violate the Constitution? Some libertarian-minded constitutional law experts say it very well could. Others are skeptical. What’s clear is there is room for ambiguity, and the donations are anything but ""clearly illegal."" The reality is this a hazy part of U.S. constitutional law. Claim: "The money the Clinton Foundation took from from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state ""is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The General Assembly on April 3 narrowly approved an amendment by Gov. Bob McDonnell that will ban insurers participating in an upcoming federal health care exchange in Virginia from offering policies that cover most abortions. The action was disappointing to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. The group said, among other things, that McDonnell’s proposal would force the exchange to offer more restrictive coverage than most private insurance plans. ""McDonnell’s amendment prohibits Virginians participating in the new health exchange from purchasing any insurance plan that includes coverage for abortion -- coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S.,"" NARAL said in a March 26 news release. Two Democrats running for lieutenant governor -- state Sen. Ralph Northam of Norfolk and Aneesh Chopra, former U.S. chief technology officer of the United States -- quickly sent out similar statements. We decided to check NARAL’s claim that abortion coverage is standard in almost 90 percent of the private plans now being sold. We should note McDonnell’s amendment has an exception that allows insurance companies on the exchange to cover abortions in instances of rape, incest or when a mother’s life would be endangered by continuing a pregnancy. NARAL said it got the figure from a 2004 report by the Guttmacher Institute, an organization based in New York City that specializes in research on reproductive health issues. Although Guttmacher supports access to abortion and birth control, its research has been cited by both sides of the abortion debate. NARAL cited a Guttmacher synopsis that says the study examined abortion coverage through private insurance in 2002. It found that 87 percent of typical employer-based policies back then covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Rebecca Wind, a spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute, said the definition of ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions"" is whatever a physician deems is required to protect the ""health or mental health of the patient."" Guttmacher said its figure on private insurance coverage for abortion did not consider plans that offered benefits only in limited circumstances such as cases of rape, incest or to protect  the life of a mother. But the Guttmacher memo also noted another survey examining the issue came up with different results. That study, by Kaiser Family Foundation, found in 2003 that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortion. The Guttmacher and Kaiser studies conducted early last decade offer the only detailed looks available on abortion coverage. Experts have not reconciled the difference in results. We spoke to Jon Gabel, a researcher who helped compile the 2003 Kaiser survey and now is a senior fellow at NORC, a social science research foundation at the University of Chicago. He said the 46 percent Kaiser cited refers to workers who were covered  for ""elective abortions"" that did not involve a medical emergency. Gabel said he interpreted Guttmacher’s study as an examination of abortion coverage for medical necessity. Guttmacher, in a 2011 memo, essentially said the two studies asked different sets of questions that may have led to the different results. Guttmacher did not defend its original finding as definitive. ""The actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between the estimates made by Guttmacher and Kaiser, meaning that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion,"" the memo said. Our ruling NARAL said McDonnell’s amendment banning an upcoming health care exchange from offering insurance plans that include abortion denies Virginians ""coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."" NARAL bases its claim on a 9-year-old study by the Guttmacher Institute that found 87 percent of typical of typical employer-based insurance policies covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Contrary to NARAL’s contention, the findings do not reflect coverage ""that currently exists."" The research focused on policies that were offered in 2002. Guttmacher never updated its report. The only other major research on abortion coverage was conducted by Kaiser in early 2003 and produced a different result. It found that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortions. Experts have struggled to reconcile the two numbers. Guttmacher, in 2011, said that the ""actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between"" its estimate and that of Kaiser. So NARAL is citing as gospel an old figure that even its authors undercut." Claim: "Abortion coverage is a standard insurance benefit ""in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."

Ex Output:

0