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.

[Q]: “I’d love to be in the bush, but I get more cases here,” said veterinary rehabilitation specialist Nicci Wright. Wright founded the hospital two years ago with veterinarian Dr. Karin Lourens and since then has treated about 4,000 animals. With the expansion of Pretoria and Johannesburg, South Africa’s capital city and its economic center, the animals indigenous to the region are being squeezed out by the rapid urbanization. The wildlife hospital mainly treats small mammals and raptors that are injured. There are about 160 animals on the small premises now, including half a dozen leopard tortoises, a toothless 12-foot python and an otter that was taken far from her natural habitat when someone tried to domesticate her as a pet. A Johannesburg resident arrives at the hospital, carrying a gray lourie in a cage made for much smaller domesticated bird. He found the large bird in the garden, attacked by his dogs, unable to fly after its tail and wing feathers were plucked out. Like in any hospital, nurse Alicia Abbott opens a file and transfers the new patient to a more comfortable setting so its treatment may begin. Most of the cages in the hospital are covered with towels to block the electric light from disturbing the animals. Along with physical injuries, many of them also suffer from trauma. Some species, like the endangered pangolin, show visible signs of post-traumatic stress disorder when they hear a male human voice or smell cigarettes smoke, a reminder of the poachers who hunt them, said Wright. “Everything is terrifying for them,” she said. In a wooden crate on the hospital floor, a juvenile pangolin begins to stir, scratching against the box. It is feeding time and a volunteer will walk him on a nearby hill where the pangolin, which is a scaly anteater, animal to search for ants. Pangolins are one of the world’s most heavily trafficked mammals because of demand for their scales in Asia. Another pangolin was recently sedated and checked by a sonogram scan to find that she was pregnant. Along with five staffers, the hospital relies on volunteers like Lauren Beckley, who lives nearby. Beckley cares for young primates like baboons and vervet monkeys, who cling to her after their own mothers have been shot or run over by humans. Other wildlife at the hospital include two newly born bush babies which are small nocturnal primates. One had been attacked by a cat and the other had fallen out of its nest. Once the animals are ready to return to the bush, Wright and her team work with nature reserves around the country to slowly introduce the animals into a new, safer, habitat.
[A]: Johannesburg wildlife clinic saves animals hurt in city.


[Q]: A March 5 2020 r/SandersForPresident (and r/all) thread featured a title maintaining that Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden “passed the bill” making student loans “ineligible for financial relief,” and an attached ten-second clip featured fellow presidential Bernie Sanders making a similar statement:Joe Biden passed the bill that made student loans ineligible for financial relief. Joe Biden is the reason so many of us don’t have families yet. Joe Biden is why we can’t afford houses. Joe Biden is why we’re working longer hours for lower wages. from SandersForPresidentThat thread had a long title: “Joe Biden passed the bill that made student loans ineligible for financial relief. Joe Biden is the reason so many of us don’t have families yet. Joe Biden is why we can’t afford houses. Joe Biden is why we’re working longer hours for lower wages.”By contrast, in the ten-second video, Sanders said:Joe Biden voted for a bankruptcy bill, on behalf of the credit card companies, and that bill has done a lot of harm to working families all over this country … I voted against it.A difference in wording between the title and the clip was important — the original poster stated Biden “passed the bill,” while Sanders stated that Biden had “voted for a bankruptcy bill.” Here, we are examining whether Biden voted for a bankruptcy bill with the described features, as Biden himself was not empowered to “pass” a bill — presumably the submitter was echoing Sanders’ claims in the clip.The snippet originated from a longer interview with Sanders conducted by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on March 4 2020. Although MSNBC curated short clips from the interview, none was specifically labeled as having to do with Sanders’ claim about Biden and the bankruptcy bill. (We were unable to find a transcript. )In the clip we transcribed above, Sanders didn’t mention a specific bill. However, it wasn’t difficult to narrow down specific legislation due to the prominence of student debt as an issue in the 2020 primary.In December 2019, The Guardian published an article with a headline (“How Biden helped create the student debt problem he now promises to fix”) making claims similar to those made by Sanders in the brief video shared to Reddit. With a subheading claiming that the “former vice-president and 2020 presidential hopeful backed a 2005 bill that stripped students of bankruptcy protections and left millions in financial stress,” it reported in part:In [February 2020] Joe Biden will lay “Joe’s vision for America” at the feet of Iowa’s caucus-goers in the hope that the first voters in the Democratic presidential race will put him on the road to the White House.Among his promises is that he will fix the student loan crisis saddling 45 million Americans with crippling debt now totalling a staggering $1.5tn … [Biden’s] pledge is one of the most striking policies on offer from Democratic candidates in the 2020 race, given how the problem Biden now proposes to resolve came about in the first place. Private student loans were largely stripped of bankruptcy protections in 2005 in a congressional move that had the devastating impact of tripling such debt over a decade and locking in millions of Americans to years of grueling repayments.The Republican-led bill tightened the bankruptcy code, unleashing a huge giveaway to lenders at the expense of indebted student borrowers. At the time it faced vociferous opposition from 25 Democrats in the US Senate.But it passed anyway, with 18 Democratic senators breaking ranks and casting their vote in favor of the bill. Of those 18, one politician stood out as an especially enthusiastic champion of the credit companies who, as it happens, had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – Joe Biden.The Guardian quoted University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor Melissa Jacoby on Biden’s role in the bill’s passage:Biden was one of the most powerful people who could have said no, who could have changed this. Instead he used his leadership role to limit the ability of other Democrats who had concerns and who wanted the bill softened[. ]In January 2020, TheIntercept.com covered the origins and progression of student loan debt in the United States, up to and including its prevalence in Democratic primary debates and platforms.… as a senator from Delaware, Biden was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the disastrous 2005 bankruptcy bill that made it nearly impossible for borrowers to reduce their student loan debt. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act raised the bar for families to pursue Chapter 7 bankruptcy protections. It overwhelmingly passed in the Senate at the end of the Clinton administration, over the objections of [Elizabeth] Warren, then a bankruptcy expert who had tangled for years with Biden over the issue. She lobbied first lady Hillary Clinton, who herself persuaded Bill Clinton to veto it.Biden came back to the legislation under the Bush administration; it passed the Senate in 2005 on a 74-25 vote, with most Democratic lawmakers, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, voting against it. ([Hillary] Clinton, by then a senator from New York, voted for it.) George W. Bush signed it into law, and private student loan debt skyrocketed in the wake of its passage. The total amount of private student loan debt more than doubled between 2005 and 2011, growing from $55.9 billion to $140.2 billion, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.In February 2020, RealClearPolitics examined Biden’s 2020 campaign stance on student debt, and contrasted it with his support in the early 2000s for more restrictions on student borrowers:Biden’s student-loan plan represents a radical departure from positions he held during bankruptcy-law negotiations in the early 2000s. Then a senator from Delaware, he forcefully backed measures that made it much harder for private student-loan borrowers filing for bankruptcy to shed that debt. Representing many of the big financial institutions based in his home state, Biden was such a reliable advocate for the financial services industry that he was often referred to as “the senator from MBNA,” the credit-card company that regularly doled out contributions to his campaigns.In promoting a 2005 bankruptcy reform measure, Biden argued that too many people were skipping out of their debts too easily and sticking other borrowers with the bill while interest rates rose as a result… A bankruptcy court judge also testifying [the same day as Biden] took issue with Biden’s stance, arguing that government-backed student loans aren’t dischargeable – something that has remained the case since then, as well.“You would never be able to [discharge government-backed student loans like] that,” Judge Randall Newsome said.“Like heck you can’t,” Biden countered. “…You are full of malarkey, judge.”Newsome was just one of the many opponents of the bill whom Biden sparred with at the time. Elizabeth Warren, then a Harvard law professor, opposed the bankruptcy bill so aggressively that she says it inspired her to run for the Senate.“I got in that fight because [families] just didn’t have anyone, and Joe Biden was on the side of the credit card companies,” Warren said at an April rally in Iowa. “It’s all a matter of public record.”As Newsome noted, discharging government-backed student loans is, and has always been, nearly impossible. However, the 2005 bill was described as involving private student loan debt, not debt held by the federal government.In January 2020,  the American Prospect reported that Biden had voted several times against “softening” the effects of that bill (abbreviated as BAPCPA) on myriad demographics hardest hit by its provisions:Biden also consistently voted against efforts to soften BAPCPA’s blow on vulnerable populations. He voted against three amendments to ease bankruptcy requirements for consumers whose financial troubles stem from medical expenses. He voted against an amendment that would have helped seniors keep their homes. He voted against exempting servicemembers and widows of servicemembers killed in action from the law’s eligibility restrictions. He voted against an amendment to exempt women whose financial troubles stemmed from deadbeat husbands’ failure to pay child support or alimony. And Biden even voted against an amendment that would have ensured that children of debtors could still be given birthday and Christmas presents. Biden also voted against allowing debtors to pay their union dues during bankruptcy, potentially imperiling their employment and ability to achieve financial rehabilitation.In excerpts above, the bill Biden was often accused of supporting was referenced by its name — the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Text of the bill was available on Congress.gov, and Section 220 of the bill declared both private and federal student debt exempt from being discharged in bankruptcy. A summary of all of the bill’s points can be viewed here.In the clip, Sanders made two claims about voting on the bill, stating that Biden voted for it, and that he — Sanders — had voted against it. According to Senate.gov, Biden voted in favor of the bill in the Senate on March 10 2005. Per GovTrack.us, Sanders (then in the House of Representatives) did vote against the same bill on April 14 2005.On Reddit, a post to r/SandersForPresident misstated Sanders’ statement on the 2005 bankruptcy bill making it virtually impossible to discharge private student debt. Sanders said that Biden “voted for a bankruptcy bill, on behalf of the credit card companies, and that bill has done a lot of harm to working families all over this country … I voted against it.” Sanders was correct — Biden was among the few Democrats voting in favor of that 2005 bill in the Senate, and when it came around to the House the following month, Sanders voted against it.
[A]: Joe Biden voted for a bill which made it difficult or impossible to discharge student loans during bankruptcy; Bernie Sanders voted against it.


[Q]: In August 2019, as many people took to the Internet to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote on paper, a piece of text started to circulate on social media that supposedly listed “9 things that women couldn’t do until 1971” (:  The following list is of NINE things a woman couldn’t do in 1971 – yes the date is correct, 1971. In 1971 a woman could not: 1. Get a Credit Card in her own name – it wasn’t until 1974 that a law forced credit card companies to issue cards to women without their husband’s signature. 2. Be guaranteed that they wouldn’t be unceremoniously fired for the offense of getting pregnant – that changed with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of *1978*! 3. Serve on a jury – It varied by state (Utah deemed women fit for jury duty way back in 1879), but the main reason women were kept out of jury pools was that they were considered the center of the home, which was their primary responsibility as caregivers. They were also thought to be too fragile to hear the grisly details of crimes and too sympathetic by nature to be able to remain objective about those accused of offenses. In 1961, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Florida law that exempted women from serving on juries. It wasn’t until 1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states. 4. Fight on the front lines – admitted into military academies in 1976 it wasn’t until 2013 that the military ban on women in combat was lifted. Prior to 1973 women were only allowed in the military as nurses or support staff. 5. Get an Ivy League education – Yale and Princeton didn’t accept female students until 1969. Harvard didn’t admit women until 1977 (when it merged with the all-female Radcliffe College). Brown (which merged with women’s college Pembroke), Dartmouth and Columbia did not offer admission to women until 1971, 1972 and 1981, respectively. Other case-specific instances allowed some women to take certain classes at Ivy League institutions (such as Barnard women taking classes at Columbia), but, by and large, women in the ’60s who harbored Ivy League dreams had to put them on hold. 6. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. Indeed the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for any legal action was in 1977! 7. Decide not to have sex if their husband wanted to – spousal rape wasn’t criminalized in all 50 states until 1993. Read that again … 1993. 8. Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as a man. Sex discrimination wasn’t outlawed in health insurance until 2010 and today many, including sitting elected officials at the Federal level, feel women don’t mind paying a little more. Again, that date was 2010. 9. The birth control pill: Issues like reproductive freedom and a woman’s right to decide when and whether to have children were only just beginning to be openly discussed in the 1960s. In 1957, the FDA approved of the birth control pill but only for “severe menstrual distress.” In 1960, the pill was approved for use as a contraceptive. Even so, the pill was illegal in some states and could be prescribed only to married women for purposes of family planning, and not all pharmacies stocked it. Some of those opposed said oral contraceptives were “immoral, promoted prostitution and were tantamount to abortion.” It wasn’t until several years later that birth control was approved for use by all women, regardless of marital status. In short, birth control meant a woman could complete her education, enter the work force and plan her own life. Oh, and one more thing, prior to 1880 which is just a few years before the photo of this very proud lady was taken, the age of consent for sex was set at 10 or 12 in more states, with the exception of our neighbor Delaware – where it was 7 YEARS OLD! Feminism is NOT just for other women. KNOW your HERstory. A similar post on Facebook with tens of thousands of shares reported much the same in 2016 from user Lisa Bialac-Jehle. In general, the list above accurately reports nine things that women couldn’t do in 1971. We’ll take a closer look at each item below: Get a credit card in her own name As this post explains, banks were able to discriminate against women applying for credit cards until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in October 1974. The Smithsonian noted that prior to this bill, women were asked a barrage of personal questions and were often required to be accompanied by a man to co-sign for a credit card. Even then, women often received cards with lower limits or higher rates:  Forty years ago, any woman applying for a credit card could be asked a barrage of questions: Was she married? Did she plan to have children? Many banks required single, divorced or widowed women to bring a man along with them to cosign for a credit card, and some discounted the wages of women by as much as 50 percent when calculating their credit card limits. As women and minorities pushed for equal civil rights in various arenas, credit cards became the focus of a series of hearings in which women documented the discrimination they faced. And, finally, in 1974 — forty years ago this year — the Senate passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender, race, religion and national origin. Be guaranteed that they wouldn’t be unceremoniously fired for getting pregnant  Women faced a number of work-related consequences for getting pregnant prior to the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. On the 40th anniversary of this law, the ACLU posted a statement explaining how pregnancy often resulted in pink slips for working women: Forty years ago, working women in the United States won the legal protection to become working mothers. On Oct. 31, 1978, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, making it illegal for employers to deny a woman a job — or promotion, or higher pay, or any other opportunity — because she is pregnant. The statute had an immediate, dramatic impact on women’s ability to fully participate in the workforce. Although on-the-job sex discrimination had been outlawed more than a decade earlier, pregnancy wasn’t legally recognized as a type of sex discrimination. As a result, a pregnancy often resulted in a pink slip. Some employers even imposed formal policies prohibiting pregnancy outright because their female employees were expected to project a certain image — for example, flight attendants, who were expected by airlines to convey sexual availability to their businessman customers, and teachers, who were expected by school districts to project chasteness to their young pupils. Serve on a jury Women’s road to the jury box was a long one. While the state of Utah deemed women qualified for jury duty back in 1898, it took the other 49 states several decades to reach the same conclusion. The ACLU noted that women were excluded from jury duties for a number of reasons: Aside from the “defect of sex,” women were excluded from juries for a variety of reasons: their primary obligation was to their families and children; they should be shielded from hearing the details of criminal cases, particularly those involving sex offenses; they would be too sympathetic to persons accused of crimes; and keeping male and female jurors together during long trials could be injurious to women. While this viral posts states that it wasn’t until “1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states,” we found that this battle was still being fought for at least another two years. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that it was constitutionally unacceptable for states to bar women from juries. From a 1975 article in The New York Times: The Supreme Court ruled today that shifting economic and social patterns of the last dozen years have made it constitutionally unacceptable for states to deny women equal opportunity to serve on juries. The 8‐to‐1 decision will have little practical effect on the make‐up of juries. All states, including Louisiana where the case originated, now have laws that do not exempt women from jury service, although women are treated differently from men in some instances involving such service. But the majority broke important philosophical ground by acknowledging for the first time that the role of women is society was changing and that the courts must recognize their growing economic independence in assessing their legal rights. “If it was ever the case that women were unqualified to sit on juries or were so situated that none of them should be required to perform jury service,” Associate Justice Byron R. White wrote for the majority, “that time has long since passed.” Fight on the front lines Women in the United States have been aiding military operations as nurses, cooks, and in other non-combat positions since the Revolutionary War in 1775. However, it wasn’t until 1976 that the United States Military Academy at West Point accepted women to the Corps of Cadets. Still, it would be several more years until women would find their way to the front lines. In 1994, the Pentagon restricted women from serving in “artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles.” This ban wasn’t lifted until 2013: The US military officially lifted a ban on female soldiers serving in combat roles on Thursday and said that anyone qualified should get a chance to fight on the front lines of war regardless of their sex. At a press conference in the Pentagon Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that women had already proved themselves in action on America’s battlefields and the move was simply a way of catching up with reality. “Everyone is entitled to a chance,” said Panetta, who is retiring form his post this year. At the moment women make up about 14% of the military’s 1.4 million active members and more than 280,000 of them have done tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or overseas bases where they helped support the US war effort in those countries. Indeed, some 152 women have been killed in the conflicts. Get an Ivy League education The Ivy League is comprised of eight universities in the northeastern part of the United States. While women were able to attend Cornell University as early as the 1870s, it wasn’t until 1983 that the final Ivy League school, Columbia College, started to admit women: The last all-male school in the Ivy League became a coeducational one yesterday when Columbia College enrolled women for the first time in its 229-year history. It was a day of celebration at Columbia, with few alumni or students criticizing the change, and with college administrators saying the decision to admit women had resulted in the most talented freshman class ever. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. According to Time, the term “sexual harassment” was coined by a group of students at Cornell University in 1975. The term was popularized in a New York Times article published that same year, and in 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could take legal action against her employer for sexual harassment: The phrase “sexual harassment” was coined in 1975, by a group of women at Cornell University. A former employee of the university, Carmita Wood, filed a claim for unemployment benefits after she resigned from her job due to unwanted touching from her supervisor. Cornell had refused Wood’s request for a transfer, and denied her the benefits on the grounds that she quit for “personal reasons.” Wood together with activists at the university’s Human Affairs Office, formed a group called Working Women United. At a Speak Out event hosted by the group, secretaries, mailroom clerks, filmmakers, factory workers and waitresses shared their stories, revealing that the problem extended beyond the university setting. The women spoke of masturbatory displays, threats and pressure to trade sexual favors for promotions … … By 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could sue her employer for harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, using the EEOC as the vehicle for redress. The Supreme Court upheld these early cases in 1986 with Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which was based on the complaints of Mechelle Vinson, a bank employee whose boss intimidated her into having sex with him in vaults and basements up to fifty times. Vinson was African American, as were many of the litigants in pioneering sexual harassment cases; some historians suggest that the success of racial discrimination cases during these same years encouraged women of color to vigorously pursue their rights at work. Decide not to have sex if her husband wanted to This item is referring to spousal rape. The first person to be convicted of spousal rape in the U.S. was a Massachusetts bartender who broke into the home of his estranged wife in 1979 and raped her: English common law, the source of much traditional law in the U.S., had long held that it wasn’t legally possible for a man to rape his wife. It was in 1736 that Sir Matthew Hale — the same jurist who said that it was hard to prove a rape accusation from a woman whose personal life wasn’t entirely “innocent,” setting the standard that a woman’s past sexual experiences could be used by the defense in a rape case —explained that marriage constituted permanent consent that could not be retracted. That idea stood for centuries. Then, in 1979, a pair of cases highlighted changing legal attitudes about the concept. Until then, most state criminal codes had rape definitions that explicitly excluded spouses. (In fact, as TIME later pointed out, it wasn’t just the case that saying “no” to one’s husband didn’t make the act that followed rape; in addition, saying “no” to one’s husband was usually grounds for him to get a divorce.) As the year opened, a man in Salem, Ore., was found not guilty of raping his wife, though they both stated that they had fought before having sex. But, even as the verdict was returned, a National Organization for Women spokesperson told TIME that “the very fact that there has been such a case” meant that change was in the air — and she was quickly proved right. The case believed to be the first-ever American conviction for spousal rape came that fall, when a Salem, Mass., bartender drunkenly burst into the home he used to share with his estranged wife and raped her. It’s not hard to see how this case was the one that made the possibility of rape between a married couple clear to the public: they were in the middle of a divorce, and the crime involved house invasion and violence. As TIME noted, several other states had also adopted laws making it possible to pursue such a case, though they had not yet been put to the test. Even though the first conviction for spousal rape occurred during the 1970s, it wasn’t until 1993 that spousal rape was officially illegal in all 50 states. While marital rape has been technically illegal in all 50 states since 1993, advocates argue that there are still legal loopholes in some states that allow for marital rape to be treated differently than rape. Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as men This item refers to the practice of “gender rating” by health insurance companies, which typically resulted in higher premiums for women seeking individual health insurance. In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sought to do away with the practice. NPR reported:  Any woman who has bought health insurance on her own probably didn’t find herself humming the old show tune, “I Enjoy Being a Girl.” That’s because more than 90 percent of individual plans charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage, a practice known as gender rating. Women spend $1 billion more annually on their health insurance premiums than they would if they were men because of gender rating, according to a recent report by the National Women’s Law Center. Under the health care overhaul, the practice is banned starting in 2014. The birth control pill This post correctly states that the FDA first approved an oral contraceptive (a birth-control pill called Enovid) in 1957. However, at the time, the pill was only approved for use as a “treatment of severe menstrual disorders,” and the FDA required that it be labeled with a warning that Enovid will prevent ovulation. A few years later in 1960, the FDA approved Enovid as a contraceptive. Still, the pill was only available to married couples. It wasn’t until 1972 that birth-control pills were available to all women, regardless of marital status:
[A]:
A viral piece of text accurately lists nine things women couldn't do in 1971.