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.

Paragraph: Modi has repeatedly called for greater use of India’s health remedies and exercises, part of a push to promote traditional learning. During his first address at the United Nations in September, he encouraged more people to take up yoga and called for an International Yoga Day. “This is our system and it has not received enough prominence. We will take it to the masses,” said Shripad Naik, who took charge of the ministry on Tuesday. The formation of the ministry comes days after the government unveiled plans to set up a regulator for traditional drugs. India wants to expand its presence in the estimated $100 billion global market for alternative medicine. Ayurvedic and other types of traditional medicine, called unani and siddha, are popular in smaller towns, and yoga has a huge following across India and in the West. Homeopathy also finds wide acceptance in India. Use of traditional medicines is also promoted by country’s most popular yoga guru, Swami Ramdev. He sells ayurvedic medicines and holds yoga camps attended by thousands in India and abroad. But critics often question the effectiveness of traditional remedies over modern medicine. Modi said on Sunday ayurveda and mainstream drugs were not mutually exclusive. “There is a need for larger awareness in ayurveda. It can’t be limited to a doctor only. Our ancestors made good health a part of life,” he said. The success of the new ministry would depend on additional budgetary allocation, a government official told Reuters. The government allocated 10.69 billion rupees ($174 million) to develop and promote traditional health systems in the 2014-15 financial year. “We have not got the attention ... We are looking for a steep rise in our funding for next year,” said the official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. Claim: India gets minister for yoga and traditional medicine.
India has set up a ministry to promote alternative therapies such as yoga and traditional ayurveda medicine, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarks on a mission to raise awareness and the appeal of home-grown health treatments.

Paragraph: The documents were filed in support of Trever Dalton’s request for treatment in a mental health diversion program rather than criminal prosecution for the Dec. 5, 2017 shooting, the Ventura County Star reported Thursday. Dalton, who resigned from the CHP last year, has pleaded not guilty to several charges including assault with a firearm. The victim, Sorin Popescu, testified at a 2018 preliminary hearing that Dalton appeared to be drunk and threw an empty can of beer at him during a confrontation in their Ventura neighborhood. Dalton went home but a short time later Popescu was struck in the back by a single bullet. Another neighbor testified he saw Dalton with a gun before the shooting. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Nancy Ayers has yet to rule on Dalton’s application, a request that Popescu opposes, the newspaper said. Dalton claims years of witnessing horrific scenes in his duties as a peace officer coupled with substance abuse influenced his conduct the night of the shooting, records show. Claim: Ex-officer accused of shooting neighbor claims PTSD.
A former California Highway Patrol officer claims he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder when he allegedly shot his neighbor during an off-duty dispute two years ago, according to court documents.

Paragraph: "On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain companies with religious objections can opt out of a mandate under the Affordable Care Act to provide free contraception to their employees. The 5-4 ruling involved a case brought by two companies owned by Christian families: Hobby Lobby, a chain of hobby stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which makes wood cabinets. The companies opposed providing certain types of contraception that they believe is equivalent to inducing abortion, including morning-after pills and IUDs. (They didn’t oppose other methods of birth control.) They based their case on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by President Bill Clinton. The issue arose because birth control is included among the free preventative services mandated by President Barack Obama’s signature 2010 health care law. Houses of worship and religious institutions were already exempt from this aspect of the law. The court’s ruling applies to ""closed corporations"" which are in control by a few people, rather than public companies with many shareholders. Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, stating that women who work for these corporations can still access these types of birth control either by the federal government paying for it or through a third-party administrator. Though the ruling was narrower in scope than it could have been, supporters of broad access to contraception expressed disappointment. One of these supporters was U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair from South Florida. In a statement attacking the decision, Wasserman Schultz said that contraception for women isn’t just about avoiding pregnancy. ""Nearly 60 percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning,"" she said. We wondered whether that was correct. Guttmacher Institute study A DNC spokeswoman said Wasserman Schultz was referring to a November 2011 report from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that studies reproductive rights. The report focused specifically on the oral birth control pill, not all contraception. (We should note that the Guttmacher institute filed a brief on the side of the federal government in the Supreme Court case. We will also note that the oral birth control pill is different from the morning-after pill the plaintiffs objected to funding.) The Guttmacher report stated that while birth control pills are primarily intended to prevent pregnancy, they also provide other health-related benefits including easing menstrual-related problems. The report used national data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth, which is administered by the government’s National Center for Health Statistics. Here are some of the key findings: • Out of about 7,350 women surveyed, 58 percent of pill users relied on the method at least in part for one non-contraceptive reason, such as managing menstrual pain, regulating periods and controlling acne. That’s the source for Wasserman Schultz’s claim about ""nearly 60 percent."" • Birth control is the most common reason women use the pill, reported by 86 percent of pill users at the time. That left 14 percent of pill users who said they only took the pill for non-contraceptive reasons. • Reliance on the pills for non-contraceptive reasons is highest for teenagers. A spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute told PolitiFact that they had not updated their 2011 report. Previously, we fact-checked a similar claim based on the same report. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said on MSNBC in March that ""it’s important to note that women take birth control, more than half of them, as a medication for other conditions, so it is an attack on women."" We rated that claim because it required additional clarification about the type of birth control and the survey results. Wasserman Schultz's statement was somewhat more carefully worded. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that ""nearly 60 percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning."" This claim gets support from a Guttmacher Institute report that found 58 percent of pill users citing at least one non-contraceptive reason. However, Wasserman Schultz’s comment glosses over two important caveats. First, she said ""women who use birth control,"" even though the study looked at women who use the birth control pill specifically -- a type of birth control that wasn’t even one of the ones directly at issue in the Supreme Court case. Second, the Guttmacher study found that birth control is indeed the most common reason that women use the pill, with 86 percent saying it was one of the reasons they chose that option. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: Nearly 60 percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning.

"Wasserman Schultz said that ""nearly 60 percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning."" This claim gets support from a Guttmacher Institute report that found 58 percent of pill users citing at least one non-contraceptive reason. However, Wasserman Schultz’s comment glosses over two important caveats. First, she said ""women who use birth control,"" even though the study looked at women who use the birth control pill specifically -- a type of birth control that wasn’t even one of the ones directly at issue in the Supreme Court case. Second, the Guttmacher study found that birth control is indeed the most common reason that women use the pill, with 86 percent saying it was one of the reasons they chose that option. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."