instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
CES is allowing space for sex tech companies as a one-year trial. At the show, such companies were scattered throughout the health and wellness section, near startups pitching fitness trackers and infrared saunas. Lora DiCarlo, a startup that pushed for changes after organizers revoked its award, showed off its Osé robotic “personal massager.” It’s one of a dozen companies at the show focused on vibrators, lube dispensers and other sex tech products. Founders of these startups say their products are about empowerment and wellness for women, something they say has often been overlooked in tech. The historically male-dominated tech trade show has received criticism in past years for having an all-male lineup of speakers and for previously allowing scantily clad “booth babes,” fostering a “boys’ club” reputation. Besides allowing sex tech, CES organizers brought in an official “equality partner,” The Female Quotient, to help ensure gender diversity. The Female Quotient, which trains companies in equality practices, will hold a conference for women during the four-day show, which opened Tuesday. “It’s been a process,” said Gary Shapiro, the head of the Consumer Technology Association, which puts on CES. It’s been a longer process for many sex tech companies to convince investors that they are part of a growing trend that has enough customers. Much of the push has come from the startups’ female founders and from younger consumers who talk more openly about sexuality. As with other technologies, some exhibitors including Lora DiCarlo had prominent booths at CES, while others such as the wearable vibrator company Crave were tucked away. Crave’s exhibit included a camper with a “Build-a-Vibe-Workshop,” where attendees could get an engraved vibrator to wear around their neck. Sex tech has existed in some form for decades. But the gates really began to open in 2016, said Andrea Barrica, founder of sex education site O.school. That year, several other “fem tech” companies made progress in areas such as menstruation and menopause. Those paved the way for sex tech to grow and get investors interested. “Larger institutions are starting to take note, all the way from VC firms to large Fortune 100 companies,” said Barrica, who recently published the book “Sextech Revolution: The Future of Sexual Wellness.” Large institutions like CES had no choice but to look at sex tech, she said. The journey hasn’t been easy. Sex tech founders, many of them women, recount being turned down by dozens of investors. They faced decency arguments and entrenched corporate standards that equated them with porn. But investors are becoming more receptive, said Cindy Gallop, a former advertising executive turned sex tech entrepreneur and founder of the website MakeLoveNotPorn. “It’s entirely because of our refusal to allow the business world to put us down,” she said. Founders insist that their devices — ranging from vibrators to lube dispensers to accessories — have effects outside the bedroom. “Sexual health and wellness is health and wellness,” said Lora DiCarlo, CEO and founder of the company of the same name. “It does way more than just pleasure. It’s immediately connected to stress relief, to better sleep, to empowerment and confidence.” DiCarlo’s $290 Osé device has gotten $3 million worth of advance sales, bolstered in part by the attention it received after CES organizers overturned a decision by an independent panel of judges to give the vibrator a prestigious Innovation Honoree Award in the robotics and drone category. The organizers, CTA, told the company it reserved the right to rescind awards for devices deemed “immoral, obscene, indecent, profane or not in keeping with CTA’s image.” DiCarlo and other female founders pushed back for banning them but allowing humanoid sex robots meant to serve men the previous year. Following criticism, CES organizers ultimately  reinstated the award and apologized. A few months later, the show announced policy changes such as a dress code to prevent skimpy outfits and new “Innovation for All” sessions with senior diversity officials. Osé began shipping to customers this month. DiCarlo said the company is planning to introduce new devices, including less expensive options. Sex tech companies still face major barriers to growth. Polly Rodriguez, CEO of sexual wellness company Unbound, said the company is profitable and customers are more open about buying products than they once were. But she said she still faces roadblocks advertising on social media, and many traditional investors snub the company. “Things are better, but there’s just still this genuine fear of female sexuality more broadly within the institutional side of technology,” she said. And while Gallop offered to speak at CES, conference organizers declined, saying sex tech was not a part of its conference programming. ___ AP Business Writer Joseph Pisani contributed to this report. ___ AP’s CES coverage: https://apnews.com/Consumerelectronics
answer:
Sex tech from women-led startups pops up at CES gadget show.


question:
"CORRECTION, 5:22 p.m., Oct. 15, 2014: This story has been amended to remove the incorrect original declaration that the $250,000 donation was given before the suits were filed. According to copies of the filings provided by Zac Petkanas, a spokesman for Davis, one of several suits singled out by Davis as the basis of her ad was filed in January 2014, before the donation the next month. This change led us to change our rating of the statement from Half True. (See the original fact check here.) In a TV ad, Wendy Davis said Greg Abbott took a hefty campaign donation before siding with a hospital against patients injured and killed by a drug-taking surgeon. Davis, the Fort Worth state senator and Democratic gubernatorial nominee, consistently depicts Abbott, the state attorney general and Republican choice for governor, as an unethical insider beholden to powerful interests. The narrator of the ad, titled ""Operation,"" says: ""He was a Texas surgeon, performing operations while reportedly using cocaine. Two people died, others were paralyzed. Doctors spoke out,"" the narrator says, ""but the hospital did nothing to stop him. Families and victims sued the hospital. ""Then, weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution from the hospital's chairman, Greg Abbott got involved, using his office to go to court -- against the victims."" Abbott solicited and accepted the donation, we confirmed, and the state intervened in lawsuits pitting patients against the hospital, though he got involved to defend a state law. Senator’s backup By email, Davis spokesman Zac Petkanas said Davis based her claim in part on a July 30, 2014, news story in the Dallas Morning News stating that not long after the chairman of the board of the Baylor Health Care System, which owns the Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano, donated $250,000 to Abbott’s campaign, Abbott weighed in on federal lawsuits against the hospital where a neurosurgeon allegedly had done damage to patients. News report and interview of donor We confirmed from Abbott’s campaign finance filings with the state and an interview with the board chairman and donor, Temple businessman Drayton McLane, that McLane donated $250,000 to Abbott’s campaign in January 2014. That donation, the News story said, came after McLane gave the campaign $100,000 in 2013. Before the six-figure contributions, the story said, McLane’s biggest donation to Abbott had been $25,000. Abbott’s campaign recorded the $250,000 donation as arriving Jan. 23, 2014 -- the very date one of the relevant federal lawsuits were filed against the hospital. Then again, we realized with a nudge from Petkanas after this article initially appeared, one of the several lawsuits was filed Dec. 27, 2013, weeks prior to McLane's contribution. His $250,000 check, a photo of which McLane’s office emailed to us, was dated Jan. 21, 2014. The News story said Abbott and McLane had each told the paper the two had not discussed the lawsuits. McLane also said he didn’t know about the case before contributing the $250,000, the paper said, and he stressed he had no personal financial interest in the nonprofit hospital system; the chairman’s post is unpaid. By phone, McLane told us he’s known Abbott since before Abbott, originally a Houston lawyer, won election as a Harris County state district judge in 1992 and gave the $250,000 after Abbott asked him for a large contribution. McLane said he hadn’t spoken with the Republican nominee since. Asked what he expected for the eye-catching contribution, McLane said: ""I’m not expecting to get anything back. I believe in strong good government. Unfortunately, on both sides, there are heavy contributions."" On top of not knowing about the lawsuits described by Davis before making his donation, McLane said, he hadn’t long been chairman of Baylor Scott & White Health, which owns the Plano facility, having become chairman when healthcare systems merged in October 2013; McLane previously chaired Scott & White Healthcare. Abbott in court As noted in the News, the federal suits against the Baylor system and Plano hospital challenge the constitutionality of a state law requiring the plaintiffs to prove Baylor acted with actual intent to harm patients -- which the suing plaintiffs/families call an impossibly stiff burden. Petkanas of Davis’ campaign provided copies of several lawsuits filed on behalf of patients and families, each one alleging a neurosurgeon, Christopher Duntsch, was permitted by the Plano hospital to perform surgeries under the influence of illegal drugs and alcohol, causing harm. Those suits also challenge action by state lawmakers in 2003, while overhauling laws regulating lawsuits seeking damages,  to delete a definition of ""malice"" in the law, hence ""eliminating a common-law right arbitrarily in light of the purposes of the statute leaving only an impossible condition before liability will attach,"" the lawsuits say. A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, Lauren Bean, emailed us the state’s nearly identical March 24, 2014, filings in three plaintiff challenges to the law. In the filings, the state said it has a statutory right to intervene in a case when the constitutionality of a state law is at issue. On March 31, 2014, a week after the state filed its request, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis granted the request to intervene ""for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of Texas law,"" Solis wrote. His order said no parties to the litigation objected. It’s undisputed an attorney general may seek to get involved in a federal suit to defend a state law, but some lawyers told us it’s up to the official to do so -- or not. Attorney Kay Van Wey, who represents some plaintiffs in the suits against the hospital, said by email Abbott’s move was unusual and unreasonable, though she didn’t object, she said, because there is no legal way to do so; we didn’t divine what she meant by that. Van Wey further said Abbott ""is defending a law that essentially gives immunity to hospitals for credentialing dangerous physicians. The law, as it now stands, denies access to the courts for good, taxpaying Texas citizens, who through no fault of their own, were butchered by a highly dangerous surgeon. ""Even if we prove the hospitals were grossly negligent in hiring and retaining a dangerous surgeon,"" Van Wey said, ""...it isn't enough under the current state of the law. In Texas, we have to prove ‘malice,’ meaning we have to prove the hospital had a subjective intent to harm the patient. That is considered to be an impossible standard. It is clearly an erroneous and completely unfair law. He didn't have to intervene in our lawsuits. He chose to."" The News story quoted Bean saying McLane’s contributions played no role in his decision to intervene in the suits. Besides, Bean said, the ""state is not defending the hospital or the doctor in this case — or their alleged conduct. If the hospital or doctor have violated the law, then they will be held accountable, and nothing in the state’s court filings opposes the plaintiffs,"" patients and families, ""on that front,"" she said. Bean gave us the agency’s full response sent to the News. In it, Bean said the state ""will not be putting on any defense of any action by the hospital or any doctor. The state will not put on any evidence or make any argument whether the hospital’s actions or the doctor’s actions violate the law. The state does not condone, support or defend the actions of the hospital or doctor. The only thing the state will argue is that the law is not unconstitutional."" Outside lawyers An Austin lawyer who helped write the 2003 change told us he believes the attorney general was bound to defend the revised law as Abbott is doing. Michael Hull emailed: ""The AG intervention is consistent with federal and state law. The AG is defending the constitutionality of a statute. His office has not taken a position on the facts alleged in the petition nor has the AG chosen to defend the hospital or the doctor."" Hull later said such constitutional challenges are rare, ""but when challenges do occur, it is common for the AG to defend the constitutionality of the statute."" Hull and Michael Guajardo, the Dallas president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, each pointed out any litigant is required to notify the state of a federal challenge to a state law’s constitutionality We asked if that formal notice touched off Abbott’s intervention. Not so, Bean said, adding the attorney general’s office has no record of receiving the notice, which court filings say was sent by certified mail. Instead, Bean said, Jonathan Mitchell, the state solicitor general, learned of the suits from a March 10, 2014, news story in the Texas Lawyer magazine. Petkanas, told we hadn’t uncovered proof the McLane donation prompted Abbott to enter the lawsuits, said by email the ad didn’t assert a cause and effect -- only that McLane gave his campaign donation before Abbott intervened. Our ruling Davis said that weeks ""after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon. Davis’ statement needs clarification – that Abbott’s intervention was limited to defending the constitutionality of Texas’ tort-reform laws. That makes this statement . – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
answer:
"Weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon."


question:
"Thanks to a little-known congressional bill, it may soon be impossible to tell whether your Fourth of July burger is all-American Angus or beef imported from the Amazon, according to a Facebook meme. ""The House of Representatives just voted 300-131 to remove ‘country-of-origin labeling’ on chicken, pork, and beef sold in the United States,"" the meme says. ""Sorry but you don’t deserve to know where your meat is coming from."" What beef could the House possibly have with the consumer-friendly law? We looked into the vote in question and found an interesting story of international trade disputes, riled up Canadian hog farmers, and ""jingoist fears."" Meat of the matter Under the country-of-origin labeling law, or COOL, supermarkets have to tell consumers where their meat, fish, and nuts are produced with varying degrees of specificity (i.e. ""Born in Canada, Slaughtered in the U.S."", ""Farm-Raised in Vietnam"", or simply a laundry list of all the countries the product has passed through). COOL passed in 2002 but wasn’t fully implemented until March 2009. By then, Canada already had a bone to pick with the law, saying it violated World Trade Organization agreements. A mandatory ""made-in"" stamp discriminated against foreign hog farmers and cattle ranchers and was too costly to boot, according to Canada. Joining Canada’s complaint were a long list of other countries. Between 2011 and 2015, the WTO ruled four times that COOL was inconsistent with trade agreements. The United States made several unsuccessful appeals, but eventually Canada and Mexico asked the WTO for permission to impose retaliatory tariffs totalling $3 billion. The WTO’s decision is pending. In May of 2015, House Agriculture Committee Chair K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, introduced H.R. 2393, a bill to repeal the labeling requirements for ground and muscle cuts of beef and pork -- and threw in chicken for good measure. ""Retaliation by Canada and Mexico will soon become a reality, meaning economically devastating tariffs on a broad spectrum of U.S. exports,"" Conaway wrote in Roll Call. ""Ripple effects will be felt in nearly every industry, every state and every consumer’s wallet. This is why COOL for beef, pork and chicken — nothing more than a failed government experiment — must be repealed."" On June 10, the House passed the repeal bill by a not-entirely partisan vote of 300-131: a third of House Democrats voted in favor of the Republican-backed bill. Saving COOL’s bacon The meme’s wording implies that the country-of-origin labeling law’s fate is sealed, but that’s a bit hammed up. The bill now awaits the Senate’s and, ultimately, President Barack Obama’s approval. In the upper chamber, COOL repeal will be more of a battle. ""The politics are going to be much, much more difficult in the Senate,"" said Victoria Guida, a trade reporter for Politico. ""Part of the reason this passed the House so easily is because so many other industries, outside of the meat world, are freaked out about retaliation. But the Senate tends to be a little more big-picture about policies, and straight repeal is expected to have a tough time."" The Senate Agricultural Committee held hearings on June 25, where Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., called for repeal. In lieu of completely getting rid of the labeling law, top Democrat, Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, proposed a voluntary labeling system supported by some Republicans but rejected by Conaway. We didn’t hear back from the White House about what the president plans to do if the bill reaches his desk. If the repeal is greenlit by both the Senate and the White House, country-of-origin still won’t be prohibited from meat packaging. As per Stabenow’s proposal, it could potentially mirror the USDA’s paid grading service of beef (i.e. ""prime choice"" and ""select""), though supporters say that’s not enough. ""The (meat) industry has had plenty of time to do a COOL program, and they didn't. So we have mandatory COOL. That is the solution that provides consumers with what they’re demanding,"" Chris Waldrop of the Consumer Federation of America. What’s at 'steak' At its core, COOL is a consumer rights law, intended to help people make purchasing decisions -- be it supporting American ranchers or boycotting beef associated with Amazon deforestation. Yet it has provoked intense debate. While 90 percent of Americans want country-of-origin labeling, the interest doesn’t necessarily reflect in the dollars spent, says Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University. ""Analysis of scanner data from grocery stores shows essentially no impact of (mandatory country-of-origin labeling) when buying meat,"" he said. ""Despite this, there are real and demonstrable costs to processors and retailers. Thus, the totality of evidence suggests that COOL does not pass a cost-benefit test."" Canada and Mexico have also argued that the labeling might make people think U.S. products are safer, even when experts say there is little evidence to support or refute that point. ""U.S. companies have been doing a marvelous job of poisoning us for years,"" said Bill Marler, a food-borne illness attorney and publisher of Food Safety News. He pointed out that Malaysia banned American apples earlier this year due to a listeria outbreak, and Mexico rejected Californian lettuce in 2006 after growers found E. coli on the crop. While Marler thinks COOL can feed ""jingoist fears,"" he nonetheless supports it, as he believes in greater transparency in the food system. Like Marler, 283 consumer, agricultural, environmental, labor, and faith-based groups say COOL is about empowering consumers. In a letter ultimately unheeded by Conaway, they urged the House to not bow to the standard scare tactics of trade partners. ""We shouldn't automatically repeal a law passed by Congress because an international trade tribunal tells us it violates trade law. We first need to look at other options aside from repeal,"" said Ben Lilliston of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a sustainable farming advocacy group. He added that COOL laws exist around the world, and United States has willingly paid tariffs when it’s disagreed with past WTO rulings. ""Consumers have a legitimate interest in knowing where their food comes from,"" said Waldrop of the Consumer Federation of America. Our ruling ""The House of Representatives just voted 300-131 to remove ‘country-of-origin labeling’ on chicken, pork, and beef sold in the United States,"" according to a Facebook meme. The bill in question seeks to repeal mandatory country-of-origin labeling or COOL from ground and muscle cuts of chicken, pork, and beef. The House passed it in June this year with a 300-131 vote, after Canada and Mexico said the consumer rights law was unfair to foreign hog farmers and cattle ranchers and threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs. The Senate has yet to decide on the labeling law’s fate and, at this early stage, there has been support for making COOL voluntary. While country-of-origin labeling isn’t quite dead meat, the House voted for repeal."
answer:

The House of Representatives just voted 300-131 to remove ‘country-of-origin labeling’ on chicken, pork, and beef sold in the U.S.