TASK DEFINITION: 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'.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Democrats savaged the Republican legislation, pushed by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, that would replace Obamacare. ""Under ‘Trumpcare,’"" U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin declared in a May 4, 2017 news release, ""being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault could be considered pre-existing conditions."" The claim by Moore, who has talked publicly about being a victim of domestic violence and sexual assault herself, cuts to one of the big fears around health care -- that having something that is considered a pre-existing condition means a person has to pay more for insurance, or could be denied coverage altogether. Typically, this refers to things such as diabetes or cancer. But sexual assault or domestic violence? Obamacare vs ‘Trumpcare’ The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the 2010 legislation adopted under President Barack Obama. It prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage -- or charging higher premiums -- because a person has a pre-existing medical condition. Under the American Health Care Act (sometimes called ""Trumpcare""), insurers would still be prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. The bill was narrowly approved by the House of Representatives and could be changed in the Senate. But in its current form, the bill would give states the option to allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions higher prices. Republicans argue those people would be protected, because those states would have to set up high-risk pools to insure people with pre-existing conditions. But many analysts believe the law would still leave those people more vulnerable to cost increases that could make their plans unaffordable. (The day after the House passed the bill, GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would consider allowing insurers to charge higher prices. But later that day -- in an indication of how politically touchy the issue is -- he backed away from that comment after it drew criticism.) Pre-existing conditions Bloggers claimed that under the GOP bill, sexual assault is a pre-existing condition, which PolitiFact National rated . PolitiFact National spelled out what would happen under the GOP bill regarding sexual assault and experts told us that the same would apply to domestic violence. In a nutshell: The bill does not single out any specific medical event or diagnosis as a pre-existing condition. Conditions stemming from a sexual assault or domestic violence, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or certain sexually transmitted diseases, could be judged to be a pre-existing condition. States would have the option to allow insurers to charge higher prices to people with an existing condition, possibly making coverage unaffordable. Our rating Moore says that ""under ‘Trumpcare,’"" the Republican replacement for Obamacare, domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions"" -- something that could trigger higher insurance prices for those victims. Moore’s claim goes too far. Simply being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault would not mean a person had a pre-existing condition. But it is important to know that conditions stemming from those assaults, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, could. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is ." Claim: "Under ‘Trumpcare,’"" domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions."

SOLUTION: 0

PROBLEM: Paragraph: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross is expected in July to decide whether to halt more than 160 active lawsuits brought by state attorneys general, cities and counties against opioid manufacturer Insys Therapeutics Inc. When it filed for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware earlier this month, Insys requested the cases be paused. A bankruptcy filing would normally halt active litigation immediately, giving a company such as Insys time to reorganize and preserve money that would otherwise be spent fighting the cases. But a longstanding exception in U.S. bankruptcy law can keep the lawsuits alive if they are enforcing government officials’ “police or regulatory power.” The exception holds that government actions seeking to enforce laws related to matters such as public health and safety are not automatically stopped by a company’s bankruptcy filing as other lawsuits are. State and local officials are suing Insys and other drugmakers in an attempt to address harm from an opioid crisis that has killed nearly 400,000 people between 1999 and 2017. More than half these deaths resulted from prescription painkillers, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For a graphic, click tmsnrt.rs/2EgfT0n  “Criminal enterprises … should not be permitted to shield themselves from the consequences of their misconduct by running to bankruptcy court and obtaining the equivalent of a stay that allows them to evade justice,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh in a Tuesday legal filing opposing Insys’s request to halt lawsuits. The opioid crisis “is a national public health emergency,” they said in the filing, which other state attorneys general supported, including those in New York, New Jersey and Arizona. “The interests of the public therefore are served by allowing these police powers actions of the states to continue unfettered by the injunctions that Insys seeks.”  A spokesman for Insys, which faces trials in Maryland and Minnesota beginning in August, declined to comment beyond the company’s court filings. Insys already had reached a $225 million settlement before filing for bankruptcy with the U.S. Justice Department, admitting to illegal conduct in resolving claims that it bribed doctors to write prescriptions, including medically unnecessary ones, for a fentanyl spray called Subsys designed to treat cancer pain. The Chandler, Arizona-based company still faces, overall, more than 1,000 lawsuits raising similar allegations of deception and fraud in marketing its opioids. The misconduct occurred under a prior management team that has since “entirely turned over” and Insys is now committed to lawful marketing practices, the company said in court papers. Insys contends in bankruptcy-court filings that Judge Gross should halt the lawsuits against it regardless of any exceptions, lest the company drain limited financial resources fighting cases on multiple fronts. Allowing the cases to continue would leave less money for creditors, including the very government officials seeking to hold it to account, Insys contends, adding that its request is not an attempt to escape liability. It had less than $40 million in the bank when filing for bankruptcy and predicts spending up to $9 million through December to continue fighting lawsuits, according to court papers. The judge’s ruling is expected to influence whether another opioid manufacturer facing 2,000 lawsuits - OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP - decides to file for bankruptcy protection, according to a person familiar with the matter and legal experts. A Purdue spokesman declined to comment. A ruling allowing the Insys litigation to proceed could discourage Purdue from seeking bankruptcy protection, while pausing the cases might signal that Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings are a viable way to halt lawsuits and take advantage of breathing room to reach a broader settlement with plaintiffs, according to the person familiar with the matter and several legal experts. Insys lawyers are attempting to persuade government officials to agree to voluntarily halt their cases, according to a bankruptcy-court filing. Insys is nearing a deal that would effectively halt some of those legal claims against the drugmaker that are consolidated in an Ohio federal court, said Paul Hanly, a lead lawyer for plaintiffs in the opioid litigation. An Insys spokesman declined to comment on the potential agreement. Insys has some legal precedent backing its approach. In 2017, a bankruptcy judge sided with Takata Corp when temporarily halting lawsuits brought by Hawaii, New Mexico and the U.S. Virgin Islands against the Japanese supplier of automobile airbags that exploded, finding that allowing the litigation to continue threatened the company’s reorganization. That would have harmed creditors, including those seeking to hold Takata accountable for widespread deaths and injuries, the judge ruled. The ruling allowed Takata to focus on completing a sale to a rival, creating a combined company called Joyson Safety Systems. A Joyson representative declined to comment. The Minnesota and Maryland attorneys general argued in their legal filing on Tuesday that Insys has not demonstrated the kind of exceptional circumstances present in the Takata case - an unprecedented automotive recall - that warranted halting government lawsuits. While the outcome in the Insys case is not critical for opioid manufacturers with stronger balance sheets that face lawsuits, such as Johnson & Johnson, it holds significance for the likes of OxyContin maker Purdue, according to several legal experts. In March, Reuters reported that Purdue was exploring filing for bankruptcy protection to address lawsuits alleging it pushed prescription painkillers while downplaying their abuse and overdose risks, according to people familiar with the matter. Purdue’s CEO later confirmed the company was considering a bankruptcy filing. The company has denied allegations it contributed to the opioid crisis, pointing to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approving labels on its drugs carrying warnings about risk and abuse associated with treating pain. Claim: Fate of opioid litigation hinges on government 'police power'.

SOLUTION: 2

PROBLEM: Paragraph: In September 2019 a Facebook user shared the following screenshots (archived here) of a since-deleted tweet, depicting three hoodies (Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Sandy Hook) and a comment — “Ok, this is a NEED”:A link to the original tweet returned an error message, indicating that the September 13 2019 tweet had been deleted. In remaining tweets, the user explained their originally expressed interest in the items:I don’t see how this would be supporting mass shootings or anything. I definitely feel for those effected 🤕of course I know that [the students were victims of mass shootings in schools]. It’s posed to be “shedding light on gun violence in America”. I think it’s pretty creativeScreenshots circulating in September 2019 did not illustrate the first controversy over a fashion statement involving school shootings. In September 2015, Urban Outfitters created a viral outcry after briefly retailing a Kent State hoodie designed to appear stained with blood:Urban Outfitters is in hot water after selling a faux-vintage Kent State sweatshirt that featured what looked like fake blood stains. To many, the piece appears to be a reference to the May 4, 1970 shootings at the college, in which four unarmed students were killed by Ohio National Guardsmen during a Vietnam War protest.The tweet appeared to show three of four hoodies modeled by streetwear brand Bstroy in September 16 2019 Instagram posts, among several less controversial items in a recently-introduced Spring 2020 collection. Four schools referenced in four separate items were Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas:Bstroy Season 5 SS20  SAMSARA. Photography :  @nateshuls  @kusumadjaja  Casting:  @aamo_castingA post shared by  Bstroy (@bstroy.us) on Sep 15, 2019 at 10:58am PDTBstroy Season 5 SS20  SAMSARA. Photography :  @nateshuls  @kusumadjaja  Casting:  @aamo_castingA post shared by  Bstroy (@bstroy.us) on Sep 15, 2019 at 10:58am PDTBstroy Season 5 SS20  SAMSARA. Photography :  @nateshuls  @kusumadjaja  Casting:  @aamo_castingA post shared by  Bstroy (@bstroy.us) on Sep 15, 2019 at 10:59am PDTBstroy Season 5 SS20  SAMSARA. Photography :  @nateshuls  @kusumadjaja  Casting:  @aamo_castingA post shared by  Bstroy (@bstroy.us) on Sep 15, 2019 at 11:00am PDTHoodies with artificial bullet holes are not an entirely new concept. In season two of Netflix’s Luke Cage, fictional fans of the bulletproof protagonist began wearing Carhartt sweatshirts riddled with fabricated bullet holes as a tribute to Cage. Cage, in turn, laments their “cosplay.”On September 11 2019, the New York Times Style column profiled Bstroy, but the hoodies did not appear to have been discussed. A New York-based fashion consultant tweeted about the school shooting hoodies, objecting to them:Putting bullet holes in school sweaters isn’t shining light on an issue. It’s being provocative for the sake of being provocative. And that’s not very provocative. It’s not artistic. It lacks refinement. It lacks intelligence. It lacks design skill. It is lazy at best. pic.twitter.com/ADCXaCFcdQ— B/G (@bibbygregory) September 14, 2019Each post identified the pieces as belonging to Season 5, Spring/Summer 2020, and were simply labeled “SAMSARA.” Bstroy founder Brick Owens shared an image of a statement on Instagram, reading:Sometimes life can be painfully ironic. Like the irony of dying violently in a place you considered to be a safe, controlled environment, like school. We are reminded all the time of life’s fragility, shortness, and unpredictability yet we are also reminded of its infinite potential. it is this push and pull that creates the circular motion that is the cycle of life. Nirvana is the goal we hope to reach through meditation and healthy practices that counter our destructive habits. Samsara is the cycle we must transcend to reach Nirvana.As the posts indicated and @brickowens reiterated, samsara is a Buddhist/Hindu concept holding that humanity is bound to a grueling and painful cycle of life, death, and rebirth. Enlightenment, or nirvana, represents an escape from the tiresome cycle of samsara.The hoodies shown on Instagram appeared to be authentic, appearing at a Bstroy SS 2020 fashion show in September 2019. The origin of the images shared in the since-deleted tweet was unclear, since they did not match the Instagram runway images. The sweatshirts were real in concept, but they were created by a small brand and unlikely to be available widely even if produced in larger number. One of Bstroy’s two designers published a statement obliquely referencing the four sweatshirts (Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas), and their purported inspiration in the mystical concepts of samsara and nirvana. Claim: Hoodies riddled with faux bullet holes bearing the names of schools involved in massacres (including Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas) are available for purchase.

SOLUTION:
1