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.

The first Democrat-only televised debate is Wednesday, a natural forum for the three candidates to tout their agendas to a broader audience after several weeks of unveiling fresh items. Gretchen Whitmer, Shri Thanedar and Abdul El-Sayed agree on many issues, like raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, spending much more on roads and other infrastructure, shutting down twin oil pipelines in a waterway linking two of the Great Lakes and repealing the state’s emergency manager law. But there are some differences that are being emphasized more in the stretch to the Aug. 7 election. El-Sayed, Detroit’s former health director, has proposed a plan to provide all Michigan residents with government-financed “Michicare” until they reach Medicare age, including 600,000 who have no insurance. He hopes to make it a “wedge issue,” especially with Whitmer, who has not embraced the single-payer concept and whom he has criticized for accepting campaign donations from the political action committee of Blue Cross Blue Shield, the state’s dominant insurer. “Health care is a human right,” he said, contending that raising taxes to fund the Medicare-for-all-style system while eliminating premiums, deductibles and copays would save both residents and businesses overall. Whitmer is expected to announce her own health care plan before the primary and most recently has rolled out education and economic proposals while also focusing on her mantra to “fix the damn roads.” The former Senate minority leader frequently points to her role in the bipartisan expansion of Medicaid to more than 600,000 adults, including in a TV ad that is airing. “She’s the only candidate in the race who has actually expanded coverage for Michiganders,” said spokesman Zack Pohl. El-Sayed, who is courting the party’s liberal wing and in recent days outlined a plan to address high auto insurance premiums, proposes paying for Michicare with a 2 percent or 2.25 percent gross receipts tax on businesses, depending on their size, with the first $2 million exempt from taxation. He also would effectively raise the state’s 4.25 percent personal income tax to between 5 percent and 8 percent, via a graduated payroll tax. Thanedar, a multimillionaire businessman, also supports a universal, single-payer system but has not elaborated. He is recommending tax increases to fund signature facets of his economic plan — expanding child care subsidies to cover 345,000 additional low-income children, ten times more than now, and paying for 78,000 more 3- and 4-year-olds to attend preschool. He says the moves would allow thousands of women to re-enter the workforce and improve students’ educational outcomes. He wants to boost the 6 percent corporate income tax to 7.5 percent for businesses with at least $350,000 in gross receipts and assess a 10 percent tax on the portion of receipts exceeding $1 million. He also would assess an 8.85 percent personal income tax for individuals earning at least $200,000 and a 10 percent rate for millionaires. Households with less than $50,000 income would pay no income tax. “We are one big family. We need to chip in to make it helpful to the ones who need help,” Thanedar said during a recent joint Democratic-Republican debate on Mackinac Island. Both he and El-Sayed, if elected, would face steep obstacles, including a Republican-led Legislature — unless power shifts — and the constitutional requirement that voters approve a graduated income tax. Whitmer, with an eye toward the general election, has been more pragmatic — focusing on what her camp says is actually achievable in the current budget and political environment. While not ruling anything out, she has not called for changes to business or income taxes and has proposed repealing the taxation of retirement income that was enacted as part of a GOP-written tax overhaul. She pledges to work with lawmakers to fund an infrastructure bank to upgrade roads through user fees such as higher fuel taxes or, if that is unsuccessful, to ask voters to approve bonding. Thanedar wants to borrow money, while El-Sayed also proposes an infrastructure bank funded with increased fuel taxes and other revenue-raising mechanisms. The centerpiece of Whitmer’s jobs plan is providing a two-year maximum $3,040 annual scholarship to high school graduates who attend an in-state university, community college or receive technical training, as long as they do community service, maintain a certain grade point average and have a good attendance record. The estimated cost is $100 million a year. “It’s about creating a path for everyone in to a high-wage skill,” she said. ___ Online: Policy plans for — El-Sayed: https://abdulformichigan.com/issues — Thanedar: https://www.shri2018.com/ — Whitmer: https://www.gretchenwhitmer.com/issues/ ___ Follow David Eggert on Twitter at https://twitter.com/DavidEggert00 . His work can be found at https://apnews.com/search/David%20Eggert
Democrats unveil new policies before gubernatorial primary.

Karen Sage of Austin, facing a Tuesday runoff with Mindy Montford of Austin for the Democratic nod for a judgeship, touts her experience as a prosecutor overseeing a new unit focused on defendants with mental illness. With no Republican opponent in November, the winner of the runoff will likely be a shoo-in for Travis County’s 299th state District Court judgeship. In a mailer sent to voters April 3, Sage celebrates the new program, saying that jail “time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent.”We wondered if Sage’s statement—echoed in a TV ad she debuted Wednesday—reflects reality. Sage’s campaign initially referred us to Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County district attorney. Lehmberg confirmed that she asked Sage, an assistant district attorney, to helm the felony mental health unit, which was started in January 2009. Claire Dawson-Brown, the DA’s director of strategic prosecutions, said a magistrate started handling a special docket comprised of “mental health” defendants in late April 2009. To be in the program, Dawson-Brown said, defendants must usually be charged with a non-violent crime. They also must be diagnosed with major depression or considered bipolar, schizo-affective or schizophrenic, and seen as unstable in the jail. “It would be someone in a crisis situation,” she said, “or their mental illness is impairing their behavior.” Experts team to address the needs of the mental health inmates, Dawson-Brown said. She said participants get services they need in custody and when they return to the community. Besides Sage, who has a paralegal and a secretary, each defendant has an attorney familiar with mental health issues; she said the magistrate, a jail counselor and officials serving the local mental health and adult probation systems also play roles, with social workers sometimes getting involved. And how has the program affected jail stays? Sage said she reached her 50-percent reduction statement by comparing a baseline estimate that “mental health” inmates facing felony charges were averaging 106 days in jail before the program began to the 42-day average for participants in the program at the time she left the office in mid-December to run for judge. The decrease amounts to 60 percent. Dawson-Brown agreed that as of late 2008 and early 2009, the average Travis County jail stay for all its “mental health” defendants, including violent offenders, was 106 days. We pointed out that the baseline figure sweeps in the longer jail stays of individuals charged with violent crimes who aren’t automatically put in the new program, driving up the pre-program average and potentially skewing before and after comparisons. Dawson-Brown then gave us more detailed jail-stay information enabling an improved review of the change in average jail stays. Based on the new figures, we estimate that defendants who have been through the new program would have averaged 77 days in jail before the program began. The nitty gritty: We multiplied the number of affected defendants categorized by the level of felony they faced--ranging from first-degree felony charges to second- and third-degree felonies to state-jail felony charges--by the days that similarly charged defendants averaged in jail before the program began. Next, we totaled those defendant-days-in-jail and divided the total (19,432) by the number of defendants (253) to reach the pre-program estimate of an average of 77 days in jail. Through February, the magistrate had processed 253 defendants since the program’s start, according to Dawson-Brown, and they averaged 36 days in jail. Best we can tell, the average jail stay for defendants dropped by 41 days, or 53 percent.
"Karen Sage Says that under a new program jail ""time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent."

The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S. Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder’s potential cancer risks. She used the company’s baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, according to court papers. Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a “proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,” she said in her lawsuit. Echeverria’s attorney, Mark Robinson, said his client is undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalized and told him she hoped the verdict would lead Johnson & Johnson to put additional warnings on its products. “Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years,” Robinson said. “She really didn’t want sympathy,” he added. “She just wanted to get a message out to help these other women.” The jury’s award included $68 million in compensatory damages and $340 million in punitive damages, Robinson said. The evidence in the case included internal documents from several decades that “showed the jury that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of talc and ovarian cancer,” Robinson said. “Johnson & Johnson had many warning bells over a 30 year period but failed to warn the women who were buying its product,” he said. Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the company will appeal the jury’s decision. She says while the company sympathizes with women suffering from ovarian cancer that scientific evidence supports the safety of Johnson’s baby powder. The verdict came after a St. Louis, Missouri jury in May awarded $110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. She had blamed her illness on her use of the company’s talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years. Besides that case, three other trials in St. Louis had similar outcomes last year — with juries awarding damages of $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6 million. Another St. Louis jury in March rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer who blamed talcum powder for her cancers. Two similar cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs’ lawyers did not presented reliable evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer. More than 1,000 other people have filed similar lawsuits. Some who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts, illustrating how juries have wide latitude in awarding monetary damages. Johnson & Johnson is preparing to defend itself and its baby powder at upcoming trials in the U.S., Goodrich said. ___ Associated Press writer Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. ___ Follow Michael Balsamo on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1 .

Record $417M award in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer.