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: On 21 January 2019, Slate published a article headlined “The Trump Administration Quietly Changed the Definition of Domestic Violence and We Have No Idea What For.” That story highlighted significant changes to the definition of domestic violence appearing on website of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Violence Against Women office. An archived version of that website from April 2018 previously defined domestic violence as:  A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone. By contrast, the current version of that same website encompasses only acts of physical violence under the definition of domestic violence:  The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. We reached out to the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) for an explanation on what motivated the change in the definition and whether that change was spurred by an actual change in law or policy. We received a response from Allison Randall, Chief of Staff for the OVW, that did not adequately answer either question. Her response is reproduced in full below:  The Department is strongly committed to enforcing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and combating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with the law enacted by Congress. Domestic violence is clearly defined in VAWA, and OVW has always used the statutory definition in carrying out its mission. By following the statute, the Department ensures the funds made available by Congress are employed in the most effective manner possible to reduce violence and to assist crime victims. In fiscal year 2018, OVW awarded a record $467 million under VAWA. President Trump’s request for fiscal year 2019 OVW funding was the largest ever requested. OVW discretionary grantees serve an average of 125,000 victims every six months and formula subgrantees serve over 400,000 victims each year. VAWA funding supports victim advocates who answer over a million hotline calls and provides over 2 million housing and shelter bed-nights for victims and their children annually. Every year, VAWA-funded professionals assist victims in securing more than 200,000 protection orders. The narrower definition employed in the current version of the OVW website stems from the definition provided in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as it relates to disbursing funds for VAWA grant programs. While it is true this narrow definition has not changed as it relates to the VAWA, it is unclear why the DOJ found it necessary to remove information about non-physical intimate partner violence. Writing in Slate, Natalie Nanasi, a Professor of Law and the Director of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University, argued that:  A domestic violence relationship rarely begins with physical violence, much less violence that rises to the level of a crime. If you were punched on a first date, odds are there wouldn’t be a second. Intimate partner abuse is insidious: Emotional and psychological abuse escalates to physical violence as an abuser’s need and/or ability to exert power and control increases. In the United States today, more than half of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. If we do not acknowledge the “small” things — yelling or screaming, name-calling, and controlling or monitoring communication and social media — victims may not realize they are in danger until it is too late. In our response to the statement from OVW, we suggested that they had not provided any explanation for the change to their website and requested further clarification; if we receive such clarification, we will update our story. Claim: The DOJ changed the definition of domestic violence on their website without explanation.
The Violence Against Women Act, which was extended by President Obama in 2013, expired at midnight on 22 December 2018 as a result of the 2018-19 federal government shutdown over funding for President Trump’s proposed border wall.

Paragraph: "There is no mention of cost. The story could have at least reported what the drug costs in its current use against blood cancer. The story did a good job of explaining both the potential benefits and harms of the drugs. This was a particular strength of this story – and made it stand out in comparison with the LA Times blog story that we also reviewed. Harms were emphasized from the outset – even in the headline – in the AP story but were never mentioned in the LA Times story. And this story reminded readers of the side effects encountered with another MS drug, Tysabri. Outstanding job on this issue by the AP. The story did a very good job of explaining the studies. There is no sign of disease-mongering in this story. Two apparently independent sources were quoted. The story did a good job comparing the new drugs with existing approaches to treat MS. Story explains that the drug is already sold to treat a rare blood cancer and stated that ""it’s too soon to know if the pills will be approved by the government or widely adopted by physicians."" It does not report, however, as the LA TImes blog did, that ""The drug company MD Serono, an affiliate of Merck, has requested approval from the Food and Drug Administration to market the tablet. However it recently received a ""refuse to file"" letter from the FDA, which means the agency is requiring additional information or data. MD Serono said it is pursuing the matter with the FDA and hopes to re-submit its application."" We think that’s a crucial piece of information that affects availability, although, of course, doctors can still prescribe it for off-label use even before the FDA acts on the new request. The novelty of ""tests of the first two oral drugs developed for treating MS"" was clear in the story. It is clear that this story did not rely on a news release." Claim: MS pills show promise and risk, studies say
Nice job explaining harms and benefits – including putting the potential risks/harms right in the headline. The appeal of an oral drug for MS is clear. The risks emphasized in this story, though, raise important questions

Paragraph: Days before the 72-year-old woman is released from prison, looming fears about whether she remains a threat and calls to keep her off the streets bring up deep-rooted questions about mental-health treatment in the nation’s prisons, an expert said. And details of the crime still horrify Barzee’s niece, Tina Mace. “It just makes you ill. How could anyone do that?” she said. Her aunt played the organ at her wedding decades ago, before Barzee joined Mitchell as he acted on his so-called revelations from God. Like Smart, Mace is alarmed by the surprise announcement this week by Utah authorities, who said they had miscalculated her aunt’s sentence and would release her from prison on Sept. 19 “From what I know, no family can take her in or would take her in,” Mace said. Federal agents have found a place for Barzee to live when she starts her five-year supervised release, said Eric Anderson, the deputy chief U.S. Probation Officer for Utah. He declined comment on whether she will be in a private home or a facility, but she “will not be homeless,” he said. Barzee has served the 15-year sentence she got in a plea deal the year she testified against street preacher Brian David Mitchell, her then-husband who kidnapped the girl from her bedroom at knifepoint. During her months in captivity, Smart said the older woman sat nearby and encouraged her husband as he raped the teenager. Smart is now a 30-year-old speaker and activist who said Thursday she’s deeply concerned that Barzee remains a threat, citing her refusal to cooperate with mental-health treatment in prison and reports that she may still harbor Mitchell’s beliefs. Smart called for authorities to consider carefully whether inmates have been successfully treated before they are released. But large-scale changes requiring rehabilitation could pose troubling questions, said Rebecca Weiss, an assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “We could be incarcerating someone indefinitely who has served their sentence,” she said. Treating the disproportionate number of people with mental illness in U.S. prisons — many of whom are not violent — is among the system’s biggest challenges. While there is a need to protect the public, inmates also have the right to refuse treatment. “The degree to which our prisons succeed in rehabilitation is questionable,” Weiss said. “We’re putting a lot on a system that is overloaded with fairly unclear goals.” Repeat violent sex offenders can be civilly committed in the federal system, but that requires a series of evaluations and a judge’s decision that they pose an imminent risk, Anderson said. Barzee’s lawyer has maintained she’s not a threat. Attorney Scott Williams did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Prison officials declined to discuss her behavior behind bars or relay an interview request. She was treated at the Utah State Hospital for about five years following her arrest. She testified in 2010 against Mitchell. Barzee described a “hellish” first year of marriage that eased after she “learned to be submissive and obedient,” and his later pronouncement that it was “God’s will” they sell their possessions and travel the country wearing long robes. Eventually, Mitchell kidnapped then-14-year-old Smart, forced her into a polygamous “marriage” and raped her almost daily. She was found nine months later, while walking with Barzee and Mitchell on a street in the Salt Lake City suburb of Sandy. Barzee’s testimony against him seemed like a turning point, but her mental state appears to have changed in her subsequent years in federal and state prisons, Mace said. Mitchell is serving a life sentence. Looking back on the captivity, Smart said Thursday that she believes the older woman who treated her as a “handmaiden” and a “slave” was manipulated by her husband at times. “But she, in her own right, abused me as much as he did.” Claim: Niece: Family won’t take in Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapper.

Once an accomplished organ player in Salt Lake City, Wanda Barzee became a disturbing figure for members of her own family after she helped in the 2002 kidnapping of then-teenager Elizabeth Smart.