TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The state Bureau of Public Health says its Office of Medical Cannabis will open applications on Dec. 19. Citing a state news release, news outlets report applications are due by February 18 and will be online only. The Charleston Gazette-Mail reports the medical marijuana program created in 2017 was meant launch in July. Delays included the state treasure’s banking vendors refusing to process marijuana funds, per conflicts with federal law. A workaround passed this year allowed credit unions to step in. The cannabis office’s director, Jason Frame, previously said he wanted patients to have access to the drug before the summer of 2021. Claim: W Virginia to open medical marijuana business applications.

SOLUTION: Businesses hoping to break into West Virginia’s fledgling marijuana market will soon be able to apply for permits as growers, processors, dispensaries and laboratories.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The lawsuit marks the first multi-plaintiff trial in the litigation over whether glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is carcinogenic, and is the first trial outside of California. It is being held in St. Louis, where Monsanto was headquartered before Bayer bought the company in a $63 billion deal in 2018. Three consecutive juries found the company liable for causing cancer with damages of tens of millions of dollars awarded to each plaintiff. Bayer is appealing those verdicts. Court-appointed mediator Ken Feinberg has put the number of Roundup cancer claimants at more than 75,000 while Bayer said the claims it has been served with in court were below 50,000. Bayer’s share price has tumbled since the first verdict in August 2018 but the stock rose 3% on Friday after Bloomberg reported a possible out-of-court settlement with some plaintiffs that could lead to a total payout of about $10 billion. While traders said the market likes the idea of Bayer settling the litigation, some cautioned that the prospect of a comprehensive deal remained uncertain. Analysts have estimated the size of any such settlement at $8-$12 billion. While most plaintiffs’ lawyers have agreed to postpone trials pending negotiations, some have decided to pursue their clients’ day in court. The case in Missouri’s Circuit Court for the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the City of St. Louis is scheduled to last several weeks, with both sides presenting extensive scientific evidence through expert witnesses. Bayer denies all allegations that Roundup or glyphosate causes cancer, saying decades of independent studies have shown the world’s most widely used weed killer to be safe for human use and noting that regulators around the world have approved the product. “At the end of the day, this trial should come down to the weight of the science, and we remain confident in the extensive scientific record and regulatory assessments that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they do not cause cancer,” the company said in a statement. Several court cases have been postponed by both parties in the past to expedite settlement talks. By pursuing the St. Louis trail The Miller Firm LLC, a key player in the litigation, is seeking to increase pressure on Bayer. The case involves the claims of Bryce Batiste from Louisiana, Ann Meeks from Florida, Glen Ashelman from Pennsylvania and Christopher Wade, a St. Louis resident. All four have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a blood cell cancer that plaintiffs in the litigation allege is caused by Roundup. Some legal experts said Bayer could benefit from a home advantage in the St. Louis trial, where Monsanto has century-old roots. But juries in the city are also known to dole out massive damages awards against large corporations. Claim: Bayer faces fourth U.S. Roundup cancer trial in Monsanto's hometown.

SOLUTION: Bayer AG is set to face a fourth U.S. jury trial over allegations that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, with four cancer patients in the hometown of its agricultural subsidiary Monsanto scheduled to begin making their case on Friday.

PROBLEM: 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."

SOLUTION:
"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."