instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: The 60-year-old sports fan, a surgeon who started and sold two pharmaceutical companies for a combined $8.6 billion, told Reuters in an interview this week that he wants to use Anschutz concert tours and sports events, and his NFL team’s players, to encourage L.A. school children to adopt healthier lifestyles. “The NFL can do so much for this city,” said Soon-Shiong in an interview at his west Los Angeles office. “Kids really rally around sports and entertainment and it could be a major catalyst to demonstrate what you can do in life by living better.”  Soon-Shiong grew up in South Africa, where he became a doctor in his early 20s and treated tuberculosis victims. After moving to the United States and becoming a surgeon at UCLA, he developed innovative methods to treat diabetes and cancer patients. The sale of his two companies for $8.6 billion made him the wealthiest person in Los Angeles, according to Forbes magazine, although he still is not a household name in the city. Under his plan, players would serve as mentors, encouraging students to eat better and exercise more. The most sophisticated methods used to deal with sports injuries could be shared with local doctors. “It’s important to motivate students in middle and high school. That’s when you can help reduce diabetes and obesity that cause illness,” he said. “Maybe we can turn that illness to wellness.”  If he’s successful in L.A., Soon-Shiong said he intends to make it a national program. Sources say the billionaire is assembling a group of other Los Angeles business and civic leaders to buy AEG. Soon-Shiong did not discuss details of his bid. Sources also said his buyer group includes private equity firm Guggenheim Partners, which this spring led a group that bought the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team for $2 billion. AEG, which is owned by Denver billionaire Phil Anschutz, said on September 19 it had hired Blackstone Advisory Partners to sell the company. It is expected to fetch $6 billion to $8 billion, according to investment bankers with knowledge of its assets. Separately, Los Angeles for years has wanted to bring back a professional football team, and Soon-Shiong acknowledged that he has met with the NFL to lay out his plan to buy a team. AEG owns the Los Angeles Kings pro hockey franchise, the L.A. Galaxy soccer club and a 20 percent stake in the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team. It owns or operates sports and entertainment arenas worldwide, including the Staples Center in Los Angeles, and promotes concerts and other live action events. Soon-Shiong’s family foundation has committed $1 billion to transform healthcare and intends to create a national health superhighway by which doctors can share biotech information and other data to improve diagnosis and care. His foundation gave $135 million to the Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica and $100 million to reopen Martin Luther King Hospital, which serves lower income patients in south Los Angeles. A basketball fan who played in pickup games until tearing his Achilles tendon three years ago, Soon-Shiong owns a 5 percent stake in the Lakers, and he said he has become friends with superstar Kobe Bryant and other players, whom he sees as role models for young fans. In March, he and his actress wife, Michelle Chan, endowed the Chan Soon-Shiong Center for Sports Science at Saint John’s, which will focus on sports medicine, physical therapy and stem cell research to help heal injuries. It works with sports medicine doctors, including the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopedic Clinic that treats the Kings, Lakers and L.A. Dodgers. Saint John’s announced the sports science center at a dinner honoring AEG president Tim Leiweke in March, six months before Soon-Shiong showed his interest in the conglomerate. Claim: LA billionaire covets sports teams to promote health.
answer:
Bio-tech entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, the richest man in Los Angeles, intends to make a bid for sports and real estate firm Anschutz Entertainment Group and wants to bring a National Football League team back to the second most populous U.S. city.


question:
Paragraph: "As the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race veers toward a conclusion, the state’s next senator needs the support of women voters. Incumbent Jeanne Shaheen underscored that point when she targeted Republican challenger Scott Brown’s record supporting women’s reproductive rights during his tenure as a state senator from Massachusetts. Her aim was to undercut Brown’s assertion that he is a pro-choice politician. An ad with a female narrator released on Oct. 7 said, ""In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The ad, titled ""Force,"" drew a swift response from Brown. He held a press conference the same day the ad was released, calling it a lie and adding that it was ""not only insensitive, it is also deeply offensive."" ""I have always been a pro-choice, independent Republican and have a strong record of supporting women’s health care,"" Brown said in Derry, N.H., with his wife Gail by his side. Brown demanded that Shaheen pull the ad, and the next day he launched his own ad calling Shaheen’s commercial a ""smear campaign."" More than ever in this hotly contested Senate race, this seemed like a job for PolitiFact. For support, the ad, and Shaheen’s campaign, pointed to Massachusetts Senate Bill 979, ""An Act Relative to a Woman’s Right to Know,"" filed in 2005. While the bill co-sponsored by Brown and Republican Michael R. Knapik eventually failed, it would have given any woman seeking an abortion information and mandated 24 hours to consider the consequences of that decision. (Exceptions would only be given in the case of a medical emergency.) ""The purpose of the Woman's Right to Know Act is to ensure that every woman considering an abortion receives complete information on the procedure, the risks, the status of her unborn child, and her alternatives, and sufficient reflection time, thereby reducing the possibility of serious, lasting, or life threatening consequences of a medical, emotional and psychological nature,"" the bill states. Similar laws have been proposed and enacted in other states following a 1992 Supreme Court decision allowing the state of Pennsylvania under its ""Abortion Control Act"" to require a woman seeking an abortion to give her informed consent prior to the procedure, receive a host of information about abortion and adoption, and wait 24 hours before having an abortion. The introduction to the Massachusetts bill cites that Supreme Court decision, saying the state ""has an important interest in ensuring that women seeking abortions are provided a fully informed choice and a sufficient period of time to reflect on the information provided, ‘to reduce the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.’ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 882 (1992)."" So how about those photographs of fetuses that women would be ""forced"" to look at? Like similar laws proposed and passed elsewhere, the proposed Massachusetts law would have required doctors or their representatives to provide women with lots of information at least 24 hours before an abortion was scheduled, including the names of adoption agencies and contact information for public and private agencies that offer financial and medical support to women throughout a pregnancy and after childbirth. It also required women to receive descriptions of the ""anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, including color photographs."" If photos were unavailable ""realistic drawings"" were considered acceptable. The bill made clear that photos of fetuses must be provided to women seeking abortions, but didn’t stop there. It also called for descriptions of the different methods of abortion and ""the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications commonly associated with each method; a description of the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications of pregnancy and delivery; a description of the support obligations of the father of a child born alive."" Before performing an abortion, the doctor or a representative would have to ask the woman if she had ""seen"" the information and ""provide the woman with an opportunity to contact abortion alternative agencies at this time should she so desire."" In addition, a woman’s signature was required before the abortion was performed to give her consent and ""indicate that she has been offered the information described in this section."" Brown says the bill was intended to give adoption a chance and ""did not force women to do anything. I would never force women to do anything."" He’s got a point. Nowhere in the bill is the word ""force"" used. Still, the language of the bill certainly ensures women would be given the information, asks them if they had ""seen it,"" and provided at least 24 hours to review it before having an abortion. Our ruling Shaheen’s ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification." Claim: In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses.
answer:
"Shaheen’s ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification."


question:
Paragraph: The Alameda County Public Health Department announced on Twitter late Tuesday that the Fremont, California, plant will be able to go beyond basic operations this week and start making vehicles Monday — as long as it delivers on worker safety precautions that it agreed to. It wasn’t clear from a news release whether Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk would face any punishment for reopening last Monday in defiance of county orders. Messages were left early Wednesday seeking comment from health officials and Tesla. The release said Fremont police would verify whether Tesla was holding up its part of the agreement. The deal requires that public health indicators have to remain stable or improve for the factory to stay open. “We will be working with the Fremont PD to verify Tesla is adhering to physical distancing and that agreed upon health and safety measures are in place for the safety of their workers as they prepare for full production,” the release said. Tesla’s factory reopened Monday for pre-production with Musk practically daring local authorities to arrest him, and operations apparently continued into Tuesday. The company met a Monday deadline to submit a site-specific plan to protect worker safety. But the reopening defied orders from the health department, which has deemed the factory a nonessential business that can’t fully open under restrictions intended to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus. The health department has said it warned the company was operating in violation of the county health order, and hoped Tesla will “comply without further enforcement measures” until the county approves a site-specific plan required by the state. Gov. Gavin Newsom framed the issue Wednesday as a local dispute, noting that the state guidelines have allowed some manufacturing “for weeks” when counties permit resumption. He said he’s urged local governments to follow the state’s approach in dealing with rogue operators by seeking “not to be punitive at first.” “It sounds like, based upon the progress that’s been made public, with the county and Tesla, that they were able to resolve their issue in fairly short order along those same lines,” he said. State law allows a fine of up to $1,000 a day or up to 90 days in jail for operating in violation of health orders. The plant in Fremont, a city of more than 230,000 people south of San Francisco, was closed March 23. It employs about 10,000 workers. Public health experts have credited stay-at-home orders with slowing the spread of the coronavirus, and helping hospitals handle an influx of cases. The coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms for most people. But it has killed more than 80,000 people in the U.S., with the death toll rising. Alameda County was among six San Francisco Bay Area counties that were the first in the nation to impose stay-at-home orders in mid-March. Newsom has repeatedly said that counties can impose restrictions that are more stringent than state orders. The order in the Bay Area has been extended until the end of the month, but the counties plan to allow some limited business and manufacturing starting May 18, the same day Detroit automakers plan to reopen auto assembly plants. Some auto parts plants were to restart production this week. The Detroit automakers’ 150,000 U.S. workers are represented by the United Auto Workers union, which has negotiated for added safety precautions. Tesla’s workers do not have a union. Musk, whose company has sued Alameda County seeking to overturn its order, threatened to move Tesla’s manufacturing operations and headquarters from the state. Tesla contends in the lawsuit that Alameda County can’t be more restrictive than orders from Newsom. The lawsuit says the governor’s coronavirus restrictions refer to federal guidelines classifying vehicle manufacturing as essential businesses that are allowed to continue operating. Tesla released a plan to maintain worker safety, including wearing gloves and masks, installing barriers between workers and maintaining social distancing. Local officials said the company initially pushed back on checking employee temperatures before boarding a company bus to get to work. But Tesla relented and agreed to check workers. ___ This story has been changed to clarify that the health department tweet came late Tuesday PST. ___ Associated Press writer Juliet Williams contributed to this report. Claim: Dispute over reopening California Tesla factory may be over .
answer:

It appears the dispute between Tesla and San Francisco Bay Area authorities over the reopening of a factory in the face of shutdown orders appears to have ended.