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.

Input: Consider Input: "Assembly Democrats want to guarantee access to abortion for New York state residents if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. A bill, commonly referred to as the Reproductive Health Act, would change state law to guarantee women the choice to have or refuse an abortion or contraception if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade. Different versions of the bill have been introduced for at least seven years in the Legislature. This year’s debate over the measure included tough questions to the bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick, from members opposed to the bill. ""So, if a baby is born intact and alive but has not yet taken its first breath, it has no rights?"" Assemblymember Steven F. McLaughlin asked. ""Is that the position you are taking?"" ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe,"" Glick said. ""That’s not me, that’s just the law."" Is Glick right? Is that the law? State abortion law Glick said her definition comes from the current state law on abortion. The definition is included in the state’s penal law, or criminal code, which defines the crime of abortion, where someone intentionally causes a pregnancy to be terminated without consent or justification. The law says a person, ""when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive."" So a fetus inside the womb is not considered a person, and therefore does not have rights under state law. That is why someone can legally have an abortion after being pregnant for 24 weeks to preserve the life of the mother. State health law State health law goes a step further in defining when someone is considered born. Under Public Health Law, live birth is defined as ""the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born."" It is up to a medical professional to determine if there is evidence of life in the infant. If the medical professional finds evidence, it is legally considered the birth of a person. ""The reality is that if they are born and alive they are a person and have full rights,"" Glick said in a phone interview. ""And that is the determination of a medical person at the time."" Our ruling Glick said during an Assembly debate that ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe."" State law says a person has been born alive when the fetus has exited the woman’s body and shows signs of life. The law specifically mentions breathing as one of the signs. But the law also mentions other evidence of life, such as a beating heart.s ."

Output: New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe.


Input: Consider Input: The company said the trial will continue unchanged as per the recommendation of a data monitoring committee. The trial was testing Bristol-Myers’ drugs Opdivo and Yervoy, against Opdivo alone, in patients with advanced melanoma. The combination failed to show a statistically significant benefit in patients whose tumors had 1% or lower levels of the PD-L1 protein being targeted, the company said. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 96,480 melanoma cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year. Bristol-Myers shares were trading at $55.99 before the bell.

Output: Bristol-Myers misses main goal of late-stage skin cancer trial.


Input: Consider Input: Veggies given names like “zesty ginger-turmeric sweet potatoes” and “twisted citrus-glazed carrots” were more popular than those prepared exactly the same way but with plainer, more healthful-sounding labels. Diners more often said “no thanks” when the food had labels like “low-fat,” ″reduced-sodium” or “sugar-free.” More diners chose the fancy-named items, and selected larger portions of them too in the experiment last fall at a Stanford University cafeteria. “While it may seem like a good idea to emphasize the healthiness of vegetables, doing so may actually backfire,” said lead author Bradley Turnwald, a graduate student in psychology. Other research has shown that people tend to think of healthful sounding food as less tasty, so the aim was to make it sound as good as more indulgent, fattening fare. Researchers from Stanford’s psychology department tested the idea as a way to improve eating habits and make a dent in the growing obesity epidemic . “This novel, low-cost intervention could easily be implemented in cafeterias, restaurants, and consumer products to increase selection of healthier options,” they said. The results were published Monday JAMA Internal Medicine. The study was done over 46 days last fall. Lunchtime vegetable offerings were given different labels on different days. For example, on one day diners could choose “dynamite chili and tangy lime-seasoned beets.” On other days the same item was labeled “lighter-choice beets with no added sugar,” ″high antioxidant beets,” or simply “beets.” Almost one-third of the nearly 28,000 diners chose a vegetable offering during the study. The tasty-sounding offering was the most popular, selected by about 220 diners on average on days it was offered, compared with about 175 diners who chose the simple-label vegetable. The healthy-sounding labels were the least popular. Diners also served themselves bigger portions of the tasty-sounding vegetables than of the other choices. Turnwald emphasized that “there was no deception” —  all labels accurately described the vegetables, although diners weren’t told that the different-sounding choices were the exact same item. The results illustrate “the interesting advantage to indulgent labeling,” he said. Dr. Stephen Cook, a University of Rochester childhood obesity researcher, called the study encouraging and said some high school cafeterias have also tried different labels to influence healthy eating. “It shouldn’t be a surprise to us because marketing people have been doing this for years,” Cook said. ___ Follow AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner at http://www.twitter.com/LindseyTanner and her work can be found at http://tinyurl.com/kv4uhoh


Output: Sweet sizzlin’ beans! Fancy names may boost healthy  dining.