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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Bryant’s action came despite a federal judge’s ruling last year that struck down a less-restrictive law limiting abortions in the state. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights called the new measure “cruel and clearly unconstitutional” and said it would sue Mississippi to try to block the law from taking effect on July 1. After a bill signing ceremony at the state Capitol, Bryant told reporters that he’s not worried about lawsuits. “They don’t have to sue us. It’s up to them,” Bryant said. “If they do not believe in the sanctity of life, these that are in organizations like Planned Parenthood, we will have to fight that fight. But it is worth it.” Mississippi is one of several states that have considered bills this year to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is found. Abortion opponents are emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court and are seeking cases to challenge Roe v. Wade, the court’s 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. A federal judge in 2018 struck down a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, saying it is unconstitutional. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the only remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi. “Lawmakers didn’t get the message,” Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement Thursday. “They are determined to rob Mississippians of the right to abortion, and they are doing it at the expense of women’s health and taxpayer money. This ban — just like the 15-week ban the governor signed a year ago — is cruel and clearly unconstitutional.”  The law that Bryant signed Thursday says a physician who performs an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected could face revocation of his or her Mississippi medical license. It also says abortions could be allowed after a fetal heartbeat is found if a pregnancy endangers a woman’s life or one of her major bodily functions. The House and Senate both rejected efforts to allow exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Georgia and Tennessee are among the states considering similar bills. Kentucky’s law banning abortion after the detection of a heartbeat was immediately challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union when Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed it on March 14, and a federal judge temporarily blocked it. A federal judge on Wednesday also blocked another Kentucky law that would ban abortion for women seeking to end their pregnancies because of the gender, race or disability of the fetus. Dr. Leana Wen, a physician who is president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement Thursday that the new Mississippi law “is a dangerous policy that criminalizes a safe, standard medical procedure and will endanger women’s lives.” “Patients must be empowered to make their own health care decisions, in consultation with their doctor and their family, and doctors must be able to provide health care to our patients without the threat of prison time,” Wen said. “We cannot accept a world where the right to abortion care depends on where you live or how much money you make.” Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy at the conservative Mississippi Center for Public Policy, praised Bryant for signing the bill. “The heartbeat bill is popular because everyone knows a heartbeat is a sign of life,” Taylor said in a statement. “Intellectual and scientific honesty demands a reconsideration of Roe, a 50-year-old decision based on old science. 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds are showing women that their unborn child is alive.” ____ Follow Emily Wagster Pettus on Twitter at http://twitter.com/EWagsterPettus . Claim: Mississippi governor signs ‘heartbeat’ abortion law.
[EX A]: Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on Thursday signed one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation — a measure that bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, about six weeks into pregnancy.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The story does not discuss the costs of annual mammography screening, or even provide a range of costs. The story does not discuss any health care policy cost repercussions of breast cancer screening recommendations. The story does not discuss the cost of unnecessary biopsies or other treatments for women who have a false positive diagnosis via mammography (greater in women 40-49). The story highlights the 26 percent difference in breast cancer death rates, but fails to include any information about the overall risk. The researchers reported that based on their results you would have to screen 1252 women for a decade in order to prevent one breast cancer death. In other words, for the remaining 1251 women, a decade of mammograms did not alter their breast cancer mortality. Although this story does not go into detail about the potential harms of screening mammography, it does include comments from independent experts who point out that the scans do lead to the diagnosis and treatment of women whose tumors would never have become life-threatening. This story briefly explains key features of this study. It also includes critiques from independent experts who note limitations of the study design and analysis – although the statement that the researchers ""did not compare the broader breast cancer death rates"" in the counties"" is unclear. Overall, there is much more the Times could have done to analyze methodological questions surrounding the Swedish study. (For example, read our blog on this matter.) Interviews with Peter Gotzsche and with Donald Berry saved the story. But so much more could have been done – another reason why more than 471 words should have been devoted to the reporting. The story does not discuss the prevalence of breast cancer among women in their 40s. That omission would not usually be considered disease mongering, but since surveys indicate most people overestimate the risk of breast cancer among women in their 40s, failing to mention the actual rates leaves those misconceptions intact. The story does include comments from experts who raise concerns about overdiagnosis; that is, the number of breast tumors discovered that are not actually life-threatening. A strong point of this story is the inclusion of comments from several independent experts with a variety of perspectives on the meaning of the latest study results. The story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest, but the researchers did not list any in their journal article. Although not discussed in detail, the story does mention that the United States Preventive Services Task Force has questioned the value of screening mammograms for women younger than 50, thus implying that not being screened is an option to consider. The availability of mammography was not explicitly addressed, but we can’t criticize the story for that. Instead, we give a Not Applicable score for this criterion. This story could have done a better job explaining how this study – and its methods – are different from earlier research on the topic.But two things lead us to give it a barely satisfactory score. First, there was a brief attempt to mention the unique ""circumstances"" of the Swedish study. Second, the story also pointed out that there’s a historical ideological pattern in the study authors’ work – noting that they ""have long been advocates of mammography screening."" It’s clear that the story was not based on a news release." Claim: Mammogram Benefit Seen for Women in Their 40s
[EX A]: This story includes strong comments from independent experts that can help readers get a broader understanding of the results of a study that compared breast cancer death rates among women in their 40s who lived in areas of Sweden that did or did not offer routine mammography. However, because the story reports only the percentage difference in death rates, without including absolute numbers or the number of women who need to be screened to prevent one death, readers may get the impression that the effect of mammography was larger than what the researchers actually reported. People commonly overestimate the risk of breast cancer death among women in their 40s. By not including any information about the absolute numbers of deaths among women in this study or in the population at large, the story misses an opportunity to correct common misconceptions.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: No costs of treatment–any treatment–are described. The study measured how many men with low-risk prostate cancer (who would be appropriate candidates for watchful waiting) had either surgery or radiation. While the aim of the study was to quantify and report an estimated figure for “overtreatment,” the story doesn’t really describe that. Viewers could think that all men reported in the story as having low-risk prostate cancer and who were treated with surgery or radiation were overtreated (half of 25,000 men), when the actual study reports 10% of men were overtreated. Major harms of surgery or radiation are provided–incontinence and sexual problems. On the flip side, the article also points out that some cancers can be life-threatening (a risk of watchful waiting, although not explicitly stated here is that a man could miss a chance to “cure” his cancer). The story explains that researchers collected records of men who had prostate cancer, so an astute viewer could potentially figure out that this was a cohort study (retrospective). It could be clearer. The story describes the natural history of prostate cancer, and specifically, the fact that it is usually slow-growing and that many men may never need treatment, which is true. However, the anecdotal story, which presumably is a shining example of a watchful waiting perspective, is troublesome. This man reports being bothered by the thought of side effects and yet reports having hormone therapy, which itself has many side effects (including loss of sex drive) and it isn’t clear from the story whether this was even indicated for his cancer (so, he could be substituting one harmful treatment for another). The story quotes an expert not related to the research to confirm that prostate cancer is often unnecessary to treat. The story describes four treatment options–surgery, radiation, hormone therapy, and watchful waiting. However, in the example given, a man who chose not to have surgery or radiation opted for hormone therapy, which can also have significant side effects that weren’t discussed. This isn’t a good example of a “watchful waiting” strategy. The story mentions 4 treatment options: surgery, radiation, hormonal therapy and watchful waiting. It states that many men choose either surgery or radiation, implying these treatments are widely available and it also relates an anecdotal story of one man choosing some form of watchful waiting, implying this approach is also available (although the man’s story, and specifically, the addition of hormone treatment to watchful waiting isn’t the traditional view of this approach). The option of watchful waiting, while historically less commonly pursued than other more active treatments, is not new, which the article implies. There’s no evidence the story relied solely on a news release. Claim: Prostate cancer being overtreated, study shows
[EX A]:
The story describes a study which quantifies the number of men who might be overtreated with surgery or radiation for prostate cancer. The story does a nice job of describing the natural history of prostate cancer, that is, that many prostate cancers are slow-growing and that many men don’t need treatment, which can have troublesome side effects. The article could have been more clear about the study design and exactly how many men were estimated to have been “overtreated.” Viewers are provided information about how many men were candidates for watchful waiting and could easily assume that any man who did not choose this approach was overtreated. Yet the actual study reports 10% of men were “overtreated.” The story also strangely reports an anecdotal story of one man who presumably chose watchful waiting. Yet this man also took a course of hormone therapy, which has multiple bothersome side effects related to depletion of nearly all a man’s testosterone (side effects like loss of sex drive). It’s confusing why this example was chosen, when this isn’t normally considered an option for men with low-risk prostate cancer.