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.

Ex Input:
The third-term Democrat touted past achievements and trumpeted a long list of policy initiatives, many of which he previewed in a series of announcements over the past month. Cuomo also stressed the need for fiscal restraint, with the state staring at a $6 billion budget gap, caused largely by soaring Medicaid spending. The agenda Cuomo outlined in the speech includes plans for expanding anti-discrimination protections in the state constitution, an overhaul for New York City’s Penn Station and a proposed ban on foam food containers. Cuomo also outlined another ban that would cover marketing flavored e-cigarettes to children, initiatives intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs, guaranteed paid sick leave time for more New York workers and expanded universal pre-kindergarten. “New York at her best is the progressive capitol of the nation, and we must fulfill that destiny again this year,” Cuomo said. Cuomo delivered his address at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center in downtown Albany to an audience of members of the Legislature and top politicians from around the state. The speech kicked off a legislative session running through June 2. The governor’s address comes after several episodes of violence targeting Jewish people, including an attack by a man who stormed inside the home of a Monsey rabbi, Chaim Rottenberg, and stabbed five people at a Hanukkah celebration. Rottenberg delivered a blessing before Cuomo’s address and called for tolerance. “I will never forget the horror of that night,” Rottenberg said. “But I will also never forget how we continue to celebrate after that day, how we continue to rejoice in the miracle of Hanukkah. I will never forget the resilience on display that night and in the following days, the resilience of Jewish people and the resilience of New York.” Cuomo is proposing a new law targeted at domestic terrorism and said New York would be the first state in the U.S. to enact such legislation. The new law would apply to crimes in which at least one person died and victims were targeted by their race, religion and gender, among other topics. Cuomo called the attack “intolerable” and pledged the state won’t stand for it. “They attacked me, and they attacked you,” Cuomo said. “These are the times, my friends, when New York state is called upon to lead to set a course for a troubled nation searching its way through the fog of confusion,” he said. In a policy briefing book that accompanied his speech, Cuomo said his proposal to legalize marijuana would limit the sale of cannabis products to adults over age 21. But he only briefly mentioned his legalization proposal in his address Wednesday, to tepid applause. A similar proposal to legalize recreational marijuana failed last year among disagreements over funding and hesitation from suburban Democrats. Lawmakers instead scaled back penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and created a process for expungement. Cuomo has declared “Making Progress Happen” as his slogan for 2020. But any progress will have to come while the state is grappling with a budget gap fueled by soaring Medicaid costs. Debate over how to handle the shortfall is expected to color virtually every policy debate this year. Hundreds of activists rallied in Albany demanding action on issues including the state’s ambitious climate change goals. Cuomo called climate change the “transcendent threat of our times” and proposed sending voters a $3 billion bond in November to fund a flood reduction and habitat restoration program he is calling Restore Mother Nature. “Because no economic strategy, no social justice reform, no education policy will be worth a damn if we don’t have a planet to live on,” he said. Cuomo has yet to share many details about his plans to address soaring costs of the Medicaid program, which serves over 6 million people. The governor called Wednesday for improved accountability in the Medicaid system, saying safeguards were needed to limit potential overspending on the program by municipalities. More details of how the administration plans to address the funding gap may have to wait for his budget proposal, expected in mid-January. Cuomo has cautioned against overspending while pledging not to raise taxes. That budget-conscious message could clash with more left-leaning lawmakers and advocates who want to balance the budget with new taxes on the wealthy. The governor’s party has seen big political wins in recent years, even as some long-time Democratic incumbents have lost to more left-wing challengers. But Cuomo argued Wednesday true progressive politics must be grounded in “reality” and champion results over rhetoric. Republicans, who have seen their clout diminish in Albany, say they will hold down spending and resist new taxes. Republican leaders including state GOP chairman Nick Langworthy criticized the governor for failing to address the budget deficit as well as a mounting debate over bail reforms enacted last year. Cuomo and other Democrats have signaled they are open to making changes to the statute. In his preview announcements over the past month, Cuomo has released proposals to ban untraceable guns, study high speed rail, allow liquor sales in movie theaters, require the use of American-made steel and iron on infrastructure projects and ease rules for prosecuting sexual assault involving intoxicated victims, among other initiatives. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, a Democrat, said lawmakers have their own priorities this year, including working to increase school aid, affordable housing, infrastructure, local businesses, rural hospitals and mental healthcare.

Ex Output:
Cuomo’s 2020 agenda: Fight hate, help planet, legalize pot.


Ex Input:
We were surprised to see that a story that covered as much ground as this one did somehow missed costs. The competing story by NBC spelled out the costs. The story nicely explained that while one of the new studies showed, as expected, that following the updated statin guidelines did increase the number of people who would be treated with statins, following the guidelines would apparently not have saved a significant number of people from dying or having a heart attack or stroke. The story said, “Among the people eligible for statins under the old guidelines, 6.9 percent had a heart attack or stroke or died from coronary disease over the ensuing nine years. Among those eligible for statins under the new guidelines, the figure was 6.3 percent, almost as high. That suggests that the new guidelines do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins.” At the same time, the story noted that the new guidelines “over all did a better job in discriminating between those who should and should not get statins.” It said that “only 1 percent of participants deemed ineligible for statins under the new guidelines had a heart attack or stroke over nine years, compared with 2.4 percent of those ineligible under the old guidelines.” While an NBC story also used absolute numbers in talking about the potential benefits in terms of heart attacks, we liked the greater level of context provided in the Times piece. Nevertheless, we think it would have been useful for the Times to include the Number Needed to Treat in its discussion of benefits —  this is an easy-to-understand metric that was reported in the study. In addition, we question the Times’s contention that the new criteria “do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins.” According to the study, approximately 94% of both guideline groups did not have a cardiovascular event, and yet the new criteria now extend the use of statins to much larger number of people. In light of such findings, it’s unclear that the new criteria don’t lead to unnecessary treatment for more people as the Time states. We wish the story had explored this result more thoroughly. We thought that NBC did a better job detailing some of the potential harms from statin use, but we give the Times credit here for framing the story as a discussion of risks vs. benefits and making it clear that experts critical of the new guidelines believe that they “would lead millions of additional people to take statins, exposing them to potential side effects such as muscle pain or damage with little to gain.” Covering two studies in little more than 1,000 words is already a feat. Doing so while bringing in enough context to explain the caveats to the study is an order of magnitude greater. Compared to the NBC piece, the Times did a superior job showing that, despite the enthusiasm in some quarters of the scientific community, the two studies did not settle the debate over whether statins should be more widely prescribed. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story sought out and made good use of independent sources. It mentions that the guidelines were widely criticized and links to some printed criticisms made at the time. It quotes a variety of supportive and critical researchers regarding their opinions on the new research. The story did not make any reference to dietary changes, lifestyle changes, or exercise. The story made it clear that statins are widely prescribed. One in four Americans take them by some estimates. The story established that the findings of the studies were not novel but rather were in keeping with earlier findings about statins. Because it contains comments from independent experts, we can be sure the story did not rely excessively on any news release.

Ex Output:
2 Studies Back Guidelines for Wider Use of Statins


Ex Input:
While abortion was decriminalised last year, the British region’s health ministry missed an April 1 deadline to begin providing wider access to terminations, blaming the pressure the coronavirus has placed on services. That left the British government’s Northern Ireland Office advising women to travel to England for an abortion even though the pandemic has closed air traffic, leaving women facing an 8-hour ferry journey from Belfast to Liverpool. In a statement on Thursday, the health ministry said medical professionals “may now terminate pregnancies lawfully on health and social care premises,” but the ministry did not provide details on where and how women could access abortion services. Former director of the Royal College of Midwives in Northern Ireland Breedagh Hughes told Reuters that her understanding was that teams of medics were ready to run the services from Friday, but women would need to contact local health organisations or support groups for details. The Northern Ireland committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists welcomed the move. “We are aware of women seeking an abortion in very difficult circumstances, including those with an underlying medical condition who cannot travel and others in extremely vulnerable situations,” committee chair Carolyn Bailie said in a statement. “We welcome the advice that those women can now be cared for within Northern Ireland.”  The Alliance For Choice advocacy group said the new advice was a huge development but noted that women unable to leave their homes due to the coronavirus restrictions would struggle to access services as regulations state a first course of abortion pills must be taken in a clinic. The delay in rolling out services prompted Britain’s leading provider of abortions to step in earlier on Thursday and say it will offer abortion pills to women in Northern Ireland by post. Some local charities have been trying to source abortion pills and offering telephone consultations with doctors abroad. But the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which books abortions for Northern Irish women in England, has far more resources to offer the service. BPAS said it had been informed about two women attempting suicide because they could not access abortion care in Northern Ireland. Doctors can prescribe pills via telephone in the rest of the United Kingdom, a measure introduced in response to coronavirus lockdown. Socially conservative Christian members of the Belfast regional assembly voted down a similar proposal on Monday. The British parliament bypassed a years-long veto from  those politicians in Belfast last July to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, where abortion has been legal for decades. Some lawmakers remained sceptical about Thursday’s changes and demanded clear information on how women access services. “Today’s announcement further muddies the waters,” Green Party leader and long-time abortion rights advocate Clare Bailey told Reuters. “There is a maze for women to get through. The executive have acknowledged the legal change but have not implemented services properly. The fight for abortion rights in Northern Ireland has not ended.”

Ex Output:

Northern Ireland authorities give green light to abortion services.