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]: Trump even suggested Thursday that the release could have been intentional. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the clearinghouse for the web of U.S. spy agencies, said it had ruled out the virus being man-made but was still investigating the precise source of the global pandemic, which has killed more than 220,000 people worldwide. Though scientists suggest the likeliest origin of the pandemic remains natural, that it spread from an infected animal to a human, Trump claimed to have seen evidence to support the theory that the origin was an infectious disease lab in Wuhan, the epicenter of the Chinese outbreak. He said the U.S. now “is finding how it came out.” “It’s a terrible thing that happened,” the president said. “Whether they made a mistake or whether it started off as a mistake and then they made another one, or did somebody do something on purpose.” The intel statement said the federal agencies concur “with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” “The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.” In recent days the Trump administration has sharpened its rhetoric on China, accusing the geopolitical foe and vital trading partner of failing to act swiftly enough to sound the alarm about the outbreak or to stop the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. U.S. officials have said the Chinese government should “pay a price” for its handling of the pandemic. This all comes as the pace of Trump’s own original response continues to come under scrutiny, questioned as too meager and too slow. Earlier Thursday, before Trump’s comments, the Chinese government said that any claims that the coronavirus was released from a laboratory are “unfounded and purely fabricated out of nothing.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang cited the institute’s director, Yuan Zhiming, as saying the lab strictly implements bio-security procedures that would prevent the release of any pathogen. “I would like to point out again that the origin of the virus is a complex scientific issue, and it should be studied by scientists and professionals,” Geng said. He also criticized those in the U.S. who say China should be held accountable for the global pandemic, saying they should spend their time on “better controlling the epidemic situation at home.” At the White House, Trump repeatedly blamed China for its handling of the outbreak, criticizing the country for restricting domestic travel to slow the virus but not international travel to keep it from spreading abroad. “Certainly it could have been stopped,” Trump said during an event in the East Room on his administration’s efforts to aid seniors during the outbreak. “They either couldn’t do it from a competence standpoint, or they let it spread.” “It got loose, let’s say, and they could have capped it.” Earlier this month, Trump addressed the lab theory saying, “More and more, we’re hearing the story.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added at the time, “The mere fact that we don’t know the answers — that China hasn’t shared the answers — I think is very, very telling.” Pompeo also pressed China to let outside experts into the lab “so that we can determine precisely where this virus began.” While Trump and Pompeo have made their feelings clear, a U.S. intelligence official disputed the notion that there was pressure on agencies to bolster a particular theory. The intelligence official was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue and spoke only on condition of anonymity. Scientists say the virus arose naturally in bats. Even so, Pompeo and others have pointed fingers at an institute that is run by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It has done groundbreaking research tracing the likely origins of the SARS virus, finding new bat viruses and discovering how they could jump to people. “We know that there is the Wuhan Institute of Virology just a handful of miles away from where the wet market was,” Pompeo said two weeks ago. The institute has an address 8 miles, or 13 kilometers, from the market that is considered a possible source. U.S. officials say the American Embassy in Beijing flagged concerns about potential safety issues at the lab in Wuhan in 2018, but they have yet to find any evidence the virus originated there nearly two years later. Scientists studying the virus for months have made clear they believe it wasn’t man-made but are still working to determine a point at which it may have jumped from animals to humans. Early attention focused on the live-animal market in Wuhan where the first cases were reported in December. But the first person identified with the disease had no known connection to that market. Kristian Andersen, who studies the virus at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, puts the odds of it being accidentally released by the Wuhan lab at “a million to one,” far less likely than an infection in nature. But virus expert David O’Connor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said he thinks too little is known to rule out any source, except the idea the virus was man-made. Finding the source is important, he said, because it may harbor the next pandemic virus. The U.S. was providing funding to the Wuhan lab for its research on coronaviruses, Michael Morell, former acting director and deputy director of the CIA, said Thursday. He said State Department cables indicate that there have been concerns in past years among U.S. officials about the safety protocols at that lab. If the virus did escape from a Chinese lab, it not only reflects negatively on China but also on the United States for providing research funding to a lab that has safety concerns, Morell said during an online forum hosted by the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy and International Security at George Mason University. “So if it did escape, we’re all in this together,” Morell said. “This is not a gotcha for China. This is a gotcha for both of us.” ___ Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann in Washington and Malcolm Ritter in New York contributed to this report.
[A]: Trump speculates that China released virus in lab ‘mistake’.


[Q]: "With abortion now a key issue in the debate over health care reform, abortion rights supporters are highlighting President Barack Obama's promise about the issue during the presidential campaign. In an alert to members on Nov. 9, 2009, Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, ""President Obama campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" We'll address that claim here. We'll also be adding it to our Obameter database of campaign promises. The group's claim is virtually identical to one made in September by House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who said in a statement that, ""during his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this 'right' would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president."" We researched Boehner's claim and concluded he was right about Obama's promise. To explore Obama's promise on abortion coverage in his health care plan, you need to go back to a July 17, 2007, speech he gave to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In that speech, he discussed his commitment to how ""reproductive care"" -- a term a campaign aide said included abortion coverage -- would fit into his health care reform plan. Obama said, ""In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we're doing is, we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we’re putting more money into preventive care."" The words Obama used in that speech mirror those in the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's recent alert even more closely than they did Boehner's formulation. So it's certainly correct, as the group says, that Obama ""campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" It's worth nothing that since he spoke to that group -- an important constituency for someone seeking the Democratic nomination -- he has chosen his words carefully. Of all the words Obama has spoken and written about health care reform since 2007 -- a voluminous amount, to be sure -- the terms ""abortion"" and ""reproductive health"" haven't popped up very often. Indeed, on several of the rare occasions in which Obama or his staff have broached the subject, it's been to assure Americans that his health care proposal would not promote abortions. For instance, in his prime-time address to Congress on Sept. 9, 2009, Obama's only mention of abortion -- which came immediately after he was interrupted by the heckling Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. -- was that ""one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."" That's a reflection of the sensitivity surrounding the issue. Obama's promise to the abortion rights group during the primary campaign could now be a liability before a broader audience that includes many people opposed to abortion rights. Still, Planned Parenthood is correct that Obama campaigned on a promise that he would put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" After all, he was speaking to . . . Planned Parenthood. So we find the group's claim to be ."
[A]: President Obama campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan.


[Q]: "In an April 15, 2014, debate on immigration, Democrat Julián Castro said Republican Dan Patrick filed legislation akin to the 2010 Arizona mandate that police officers ask individuals about their immigration status. ""He filed (Senate Bill) 1070-like show-me-your-papers legislation,"" the San Antonio mayor said in the debate aired by the Univision network. Castro said this action left Patrick out of step with Texas Democrats and Republicans who, he suggested, are more supportive of immigrants regardless of origin. Patrick, the Houston state senator in a May 27 runoff with incumbent David Dewhurst for the GOP lieutenant governor nomination, replied: ""No, mayor. That’s a lie."" Asked to elaborate, Patrick said: ""First of all, that bill, which didn’t pass, would have only … come into play had police had suspicions that someone had committed a crime and then"" they would ""turn it over to"" the federal Immigration Customs Enforcement agency, he said, ""to try to keep us in line with Secure Communities,"" the program enabling fingerprints of arrested individuals to be checked against federal crime and immigration databases. Patrick further said he’d decided, ""based on things the federal government has done, that that bill will not pass and will not be effective."" We wondered if indeed Patrick filed an Arizona-type ""show-me-your-papers"" proposal. Looks like it. Castro's basis By email, Castro spokesman Jaime Castillo quoted Patrick’s measure, which died without a hearing in the 2011 legislative session, and said it was similar to a vital part of Arizona’s law. As recapped by Castillo, Patrick’s legislation specified: ""A peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws (sic)."" Castillo said Arizona's law ""included language authorizing police officers to check immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is here illegally and, before"" court rulings  ""to arrest without a warrant, anyone ‘the officer has probable cause to believe … has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.’"" Let’s look at both. Arizona law Arizona’s 21-page measure, signed into law in April 2010, included provisions intended to ""work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present"" in the country. A key element of the law--which included state-level restrictions on human smuggling and workers congregating in search of day jobs--directed law officers at all levels to check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Another section said the immigration status of arrested individuals must be checked before their release. The law also provided for officers to transport individuals lacking proof of legal residency to federal authorities. Generally, as noted in a 2010 fact check, the law required legal immigrants to carry papers that confirmed their legal status, though the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out parts of the law that would have made state crimes out of federal immigration violations, as reported by The Associated Press in June 2012. According to the AP’s account, the court rejected the law’s mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers. It also tossed language making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job, the AP said, and voided a provision permitting police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. The court let stand the law’s requirement that police officers check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Even then, the AP reported, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. Also, they removed some teeth by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges. Patrick’s proposal According to a Texas legislative website, Patrick filed his measure, SB 126, on Nov. 8, 2010 in anticipation of the 2011 legislative session. The proposal called for revising the state’s Code of Criminal Procedure by specifying that a ""peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws."" If the officer has ""probable cause"" to believe as much, the officer could arrest the person and ""shall identify and report the person to"" ICE, the proposal said. Also, Patrick’s measure voided any local ordinance, regulation or policy interfering with an officer carrying out the described duty, furthermore giving legal immunity to an officer, agency or other governmental entity for any cause of action connected to carrying out such duties aside from intentional misconduct, recklessness or gross negligence connected with the intended law. At the time, news stories said Patrick had filed a proposal like the show-your-papers part of the Arizona law, though Patrick stressed in interviews that police officers would be required to ask a person if they were in the state legally only if they reasonably suspected otherwise. A Nov. 13, 2010, news story in the San Antonio Express-News quoted him as saying law agencies wanted the question to be required, instead of being optional, to avoid complaints of profiling. In January 2011, Patrick separately told the Associated Press and an MSNBC host that he’d been to Arizona to see its law in action. Patrick said on MSNBC: ""It's workable for our police. And then once a police officer says to someone, are you legally present, because they don't have any identification, we then give the discretion to the officer to take the next step. Is that an arrest, is it detaining that person on suspicion of another possible crime?"" Logan Spence, Patrick’s lieutenant governor campaign manager, replied to our query about Patrick’s proposal with an email suggesting Patrick’s proposal was more narrow than the entire Arizona statute. By phone, Castillo said Castro didn’t say in the debate that Patrick filed the entire Arizona law. Our ruling Castro said Patrick ""proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation."" Patrick’s unsuccessful proposal was similar to, and modeled on, Arizona’s show-your-papers provision.s . – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing."
[A]:
"Julián Castro Says Dan Patrick ""proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation."