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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Emily's List is stoking the abortion debate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District race with a fundraising email saying Republican incumbent Mike Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" Emily's List -- a political organization that supports the election of Democratic women who support abortion rights -- has endorsed Coffman's opponent, state Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat. Its mailer focused on reproductive rights, abortion and Roe v. Wade. In the email, titled ""2016 goal: A Congress that fights for women and families,"" Emily's List said, ""We wish Congress was less like this"" -- citing Mike Coffman's co-sponsorship of the 2011 bill -- ""and more like this … Morgan Carroll sponsored a bill to make emergency contraception available to sexual assault survivors."" We wanted to check the accuracy of Emily's List's characterization of Coffman's role in the legislation. Coffman did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which attempted to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape"" -- and not rape in broader terms. Critics said the ""forcible rape"" language could rule out other forms of sexual assault that are considered rape, including statutory rape, attacks where women are drugged or threatened, and date rapes. Facing a backlash from women's groups, Republicans amended the bill in committee to remove the word ""forcible"" and make the exemption for ""rape."" Coffman wasn't on this committee and didn't vote on the removal. ""The bill was amended in committee, and Congressman Coffman supported the amended bill on the floor,"" a Coffman campaign spokesman later said. Congressional records show that Coffman voted for the amended bill in a floor vote, which passed the House but not the Senate. In recent years, Coffman has tempered his position on abortion in one of the country's most competitive ""swing"" districts, which is nearly evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents. In 2012, he said, ""I am against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother."" But a year later, Coffman said that while he supported a House bill to limit late-term abortions, ""I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this legislation."" Coffman's Democratic opponent, Morgan Carroll, had blunt criticism of his co-sponsoring the 2011 bill's original ""forcible rape"" language. ""Rape is about the lack of consent -- not the degree of force -- and this definition takes us backwards,"" Carroll told Denver7. ""I unequivocally support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body, including her health care,"" she said. Coffman's spokeswoman complained that political opponents have repeatedly raised the 2011 bill and ""will twist the facts any way they can in an attempt to mischaracterize and demonize Rep. Coffman."" Our ruling Emily’s List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation, we're rating this claim . Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill." Claim: "As part of legislative fights over abortion rights, ""Mike Coffman co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."

Output: "Emily’s List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation. Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill."


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: There were nearly 1,000 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year. Correct, there were 934 registered in 2017. The UK has the highest death rate in the EU from drugs. Estonia had the highest rate of drug-related deaths per million people aged 15 to 64 in the EU, based on research using data from 2015 and 2016. The UK placed joint-third alongside Ireland. Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU. Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016. Claim 1 of 4 Claim: Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU.

Output: Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "As the products used in the study are not commercially available, there was no mention of their presumptive costs. (It might have been interesting to explore how fortified margarines compare in cost to those which are not.) The story indicate that there did not appear to be any advantage from the use of the fortified margarines. However – the study actually found a suggestion of a statistical benefit in the sub-population of individuals who had had a prior heart attack and who also had diabetes. This is a correction of our originally-posted score on this criterion. The story did, indeed, report that ""there were no harmful side effects."" Adequate description of the study and of its possible limitations. No overt disease mongering. The story included quotes from sources not involved in the study. The story mentioned the increasing number of foods on the shelves that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids and perhaps the results of this study will make readers question whether such fortification is actually value added. While indicating that the people in the study were receiving optimal medical therapy, the story did not mention other possible means by which individuals who have had a heart attack can lower their chance of having another one. Even one line of such context would have been appreciated and helpful. While indicating that Unilever makes an omega-3 fortified margarine, the story didn’t mention that the margarines used in the study were specifically formulated for the study and are not commercially available. However – there are commercially available margarines that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids. Although the story was not clear that the margarines used in the study were prepared exclusively for use in the study, it did indicate that similarly fortified products are commercially available. It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release." Claim: Study: More omega-3 fats didn’t aid heart patients


Output: One of 3 stories we reviewed on this study (Reuters and HealthDay were the others), this one did raise some interesting thoughts about why the study failed to show a difference and reported on some of the other types of foods that are now commercially fortified with omega-3 fatty acids. Health claims in food marketing require a great deal of scrutiny. This new data casts some doubt on some past marketing practices. We’ll see how and if that changes – and if consumer behavior and health care advice changes at all. As a quote in the Reuters story suggests, don’t hold your breath waiting for such change.