Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "At this year’s March for Life -- the annual anti-abortion rally in Washington -- Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, decried a federal rule implemented in the waning days of President Barack Obama's administration. Ernst told the crowd on Jan. 27, 2017, that she would ""introduce a bill Monday to stop what some have referred to as ‘President Obama’s last gift to Planned Parenthood.’ "" Ernst referred to Title X of the United States Public Health Service Act, which covers family planning. She said that her effort, in cooperation with Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., ""would scrap the Obama administration’s 11th-hour rule that entrenches federal family planning funding for Planned Parenthood."" We wondered if Ernst had accurately described the Obama administration’s action. Our conclusion: Ernst was essentially on target. About Title X Title X, as the federal rule notes, is the only federal program focused solely on providing family planning and related preventive services. In 2015, the rule says, more than 4 million individuals received services through more than 3,900 Title X-funded health centers. Planned Parenthood says its affiliates served approximately 1.5 million patients that year under Title X, about one-third of the federal program’s yearly total. Planned Parenthood has drawn criticism from anti-abortion advocates because in addition to providing uncontroversial women’s health services, the group also performs abortions. By law, abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are paid for by private money, not federal dollars. But anti-abortion advocates argue that money is fungible and that the federal government is effectively supporting a major provider of abortions. Supporters of Planned Parenthood counter that the money flows are separated and that barring federal dollars from being spent on Planned Parenthood would have dire negative consequences for women’s health, especially among poor Americans. The Obama administration rule On Sept. 7, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a ""notice of proposed rulemaking"" -- the first step in formulating a new federal rule. The proposed rule would make clear that the decision to fund an organization under Title X cannot be based on ""reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services."" The effect would be that the fact of providing abortion services couldn’t be used against a group that seeks Title X funding. After the notice of proposed rulemaking was issued, the rule went through a series of required steps, including a public comment period. Ultimately, HHS acted to finalize the rule while the Obama administration was still in charge, but after Donald Trump had won the 2016 presidential election. HHS made the rule effective Jan. 18. Though the proposal was framed broadly, it was widely perceived as having a significant impact on Planned Parenthood. Both sides essentially agreed on that. After the notice of proposed rulemaking, Ernst and other lawmakers immediately expressed concern to HHS about its impact on Planned Parenthood. And after the rule was finalized, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said in a statement that ""President Obama has cemented his legacy as a champion for women's health. This rule protects birth control, cancer screenings, (sexually-transmitted infection) testing and treatment and other health care for millions of people."" Evaluating Ernst’s description So how well does Ernst’s characterization stack up? We’ll take her statement phrase by phrase. • ""11th-hour rule."" While all relevant procedures were followed in the formulation of the rule, the final rule did materialize quicker than many federal rules do, experts said. ""The rule was proposed in September and finalized in December,"" said Columbia Law School professor Gillian Metzger. ""In practice, that's a pretty fast turnaround."" And of course, by making the effective date Jan. 18, 2017, it took effect in the final 48 hours of the Obama administration. All told, Ernst has a strong case for calling it an ""11th-hour"" rule. • ""Entrenches federal family planning funding."" Experts told PolitiFact that the Obama rulemaking did make the policy harder to overturn, although either Congress or Trump’s HHS department could take steps to do so. ""I would not quibble about the use of ‘entrench’ in this context,"" said Boston University law professor Gary S. Lawson. ""Rules are not that easy to change. There are degrees of entrenchment, of course, depending on the procedures required for change, but if someone wants to apply the term to a substantive agency rule, I would let them do it."" Metzger agreed. ""As a practical matter, reversing a rule takes resources and time by the agency, and there would likely be a court challenge and the possibility that a court would repeal the reversal as arbitrary."" • ""For Planned Parenthood."" As we noted earlier, both sides in the abortion debate publicly linked the rule to Planned Parenthood. That said, the rule did not exclusively target Planned Parenthood. The rule itself does not mention the organization by name, although the accompanying material does mention the group specifically in a question-and-answer section summarizing public comments. ""While Planned Parenthood might be one of the affected applicants, the rule is actually written in a neutral manner,"" said Jeffrey S. Lubbers, an American University law professor. Our ruling Ernst said the Obama administration issued an ""11th-hour rule that entrenches federal family planning funding for Planned Parenthood."" It may be a slight exaggeration to use the word ""entrench,"" since there are ways to overturn the rule within a matter of months, and it should be noted that the rule would affect a variety of other health care providers, not just Planned Parenthood, Still, it’s hard to argue that this was not an 11th-hour rule, and in general we find that Ernst has characterized pretty accurately what the Obama administration did." Claim: "The Obama administration issued an ""11th-hour rule that entrenches federal family planning funding for Planned Parenthood."
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The General Assembly on April 3 narrowly approved an amendment by Gov. Bob McDonnell that will ban insurers participating in an upcoming federal health care exchange in Virginia from offering policies that cover most abortions. The action was disappointing to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. The group said, among other things, that McDonnell’s proposal would force the exchange to offer more restrictive coverage than most private insurance plans. ""McDonnell’s amendment prohibits Virginians participating in the new health exchange from purchasing any insurance plan that includes coverage for abortion -- coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S.,"" NARAL said in a March 26 news release. Two Democrats running for lieutenant governor -- state Sen. Ralph Northam of Norfolk and Aneesh Chopra, former U.S. chief technology officer of the United States -- quickly sent out similar statements. We decided to check NARAL’s claim that abortion coverage is standard in almost 90 percent of the private plans now being sold. We should note McDonnell’s amendment has an exception that allows insurance companies on the exchange to cover abortions in instances of rape, incest or when a mother’s life would be endangered by continuing a pregnancy. NARAL said it got the figure from a 2004 report by the Guttmacher Institute, an organization based in New York City that specializes in research on reproductive health issues. Although Guttmacher supports access to abortion and birth control, its research has been cited by both sides of the abortion debate. NARAL cited a Guttmacher synopsis that says the study examined abortion coverage through private insurance in 2002. It found that 87 percent of typical employer-based policies back then covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Rebecca Wind, a spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute, said the definition of ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions"" is whatever a physician deems is required to protect the ""health or mental health of the patient."" Guttmacher said its figure on private insurance coverage for abortion did not consider plans that offered benefits only in limited circumstances such as cases of rape, incest or to protect  the life of a mother. But the Guttmacher memo also noted another survey examining the issue came up with different results. That study, by Kaiser Family Foundation, found in 2003 that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortion. The Guttmacher and Kaiser studies conducted early last decade offer the only detailed looks available on abortion coverage. Experts have not reconciled the difference in results. We spoke to Jon Gabel, a researcher who helped compile the 2003 Kaiser survey and now is a senior fellow at NORC, a social science research foundation at the University of Chicago. He said the 46 percent Kaiser cited refers to workers who were covered  for ""elective abortions"" that did not involve a medical emergency. Gabel said he interpreted Guttmacher’s study as an examination of abortion coverage for medical necessity. Guttmacher, in a 2011 memo, essentially said the two studies asked different sets of questions that may have led to the different results. Guttmacher did not defend its original finding as definitive. ""The actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between the estimates made by Guttmacher and Kaiser, meaning that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion,"" the memo said. Our ruling NARAL said McDonnell’s amendment banning an upcoming health care exchange from offering insurance plans that include abortion denies Virginians ""coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."" NARAL bases its claim on a 9-year-old study by the Guttmacher Institute that found 87 percent of typical of typical employer-based insurance policies covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Contrary to NARAL’s contention, the findings do not reflect coverage ""that currently exists."" The research focused on policies that were offered in 2002. Guttmacher never updated its report. The only other major research on abortion coverage was conducted by Kaiser in early 2003 and produced a different result. It found that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortions. Experts have struggled to reconcile the two numbers. Guttmacher, in 2011, said that the ""actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between"" its estimate and that of Kaiser. So NARAL is citing as gospel an old figure that even its authors undercut." Claim: "Abortion coverage is a standard insurance benefit ""in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: At the same time, the WHO said, record numbers of children are getting the vaccine - offering hope that the rise in infections may not last. “Progress has been uneven between and within countries, leaving increasing clusters of susceptible individuals unprotected, and resulting in a record number of people affected by the virus in 2018,” it said in a statement. Measles is a highly contagious viral disease that can cause hearing loss and brain disorders in children and, in severe cases, can kill. Vaccination coverage needs to be around 95 percent to prevent the virus circulating in communities - so-called “herd immunity”. In many countries, anti-vaccine campaigners seek to dissuade parents from getting their children immunized, despite strong scientific evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. In Italy, the co-ruling anti-establishment Five Star Movement has questioned the safety of some vaccines and loudly denounced efforts to make vaccinations mandatory. In the WHO’s European region, which covers nearly 900 million people, some 82,600 in 47 countries contracted measles last year - the highest number this decade. Of those, 72 cases were fatal. Six of the 53 countries did not report. In 34 of the countries, estimated coverage with a second dose of measles vaccine was below 95 percent. “(Immunization) gaps at local level still offer an open door to the virus,” the WHO’s European director, Zsuzsanna Jakab, said in a statement. Professor Arne Akbar, president of the British Society for Immunology, said the figures were “extremely concerning”. Heidi Larson, a specialist in vaccines and public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the increase in cases was a “wake-up call on the importance of building confidence in vaccination”. A report published by the European Commission last year and compiled by a team led by Larson found that measles immunization coverage has fallen in 12 EU countries since 2010, and that seven out of the 10 countries with the lowest vaccine confidence in the world are in Europe. Claim: European measles cases highest in a decade as pockets refuse vaccination.
[EX A]:
2