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.

[Q]: A “Republicans on Rape” graphic widely circulated online since 2014 collects various comments about that crime supposedly made by GOP politicians in recent years:  The remarks collected in that graphic were indeed all uttered by the persons to whom they have been attributed; below we offer four of the statements on video (also on YouTube), as well as the context in which they were made, and any clarifying remarks subsequently offered by their speakers. “Rape is kinda like the weather. If it’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” On 24 March 1990, Texas oilman Clayton Williams, the Republican nominee in the Lone Star State’s upcoming gubernatorial election, was preparing for a cattle roundup at his West Texas ranch while undesirable weather conditions threatened to spoil the event. As he sat around a campfire with ranch hands, campaign workers, and reporters, Williams likened that day’s cold, foggy weather to rape, saying, “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.” Later that day Williams asserted that his comment had been a joke, and a few days later his campaign offered an apologetic statement about it: Mr. Williams said it was merely a joke and apologized “if anyone’s offended.” “That’s not a Republican women’s club that we were having this morning,” he said. “It’s a working cow camp, a tough world where you can get kicked in the testicles if you’re not careful.” Asked if some people might be offended, Mr. Williams said: “I’m not going to give you a serious answer. It wasn’t a serious deal. It wasn’t a serious statement.” But his campaign issued a statement in which Mr. Williams said: “I feel just terrible about this. I had no intention in my heart to hurt anyone, especially those women who have been traumatized by rape. “Looking back, I realize it was insensitive and had no place at the campfire or in any setting.” “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that thing down.” On 19 August 2012, U.S. Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a Republican who was challenging incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill for her seat in the U.S. Senate, was interviewed by St. Louis television station KTVI. During that interview, Akin was asked whether he believed abortion was justified in cases of rape, and he responded by asserting that “legitimate rapes” rarely resulted in pregnancy: “It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.” After his words touched off widespread outrage, Akin then issued a statement maintaining that his remarks were “off-the-cuff” and that he “misspoke in this interview”: As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve. I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election. Two years later, while appearing in another television interview with MSNBC to promote his new book Firing Back, Akin asserted that “legitimate rape” was a law enforcement term and that his original remark had been “intentionally misunderstood”: “Legitimate rape is a law enforcement term, it’s an abbreviation for ‘legitimate case of rape,’” he told Chuck Todd. “A woman calls a police station, the police investigate, she says ‘I’ve been raped,’ they investigate that. So before any of the facts are in, they call it a legitimate case of rape,” explained Aiken. Akin believes that everyone took what he said out of context. “This was intentionally misunderstood and twisted for political purposes. It doesn’t make any sense to say ‘a conservative is saying that rape is legitimate,’ that doesn’t even add up.” Time magazine noted that they were unable to find a law enforcement official familiar with the term “legitimate rape”: But is “legitimate rape” really a law enforcement term? We asked some experts. “I’ve taught police officers, and worked with police officers on every continent in the world, and that’s something I’ve never heard in my 50 years in law enforcement,” says Dr. James A. Williams, former Chief of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces for the U.S Department of Justice, who also worked in municipal law enforcement in New Jersey. “I’ve never heard of that. Never.” Richard Lichten, a veteran of the LA County Sheriff’s Department and expert on sexual assault investigations agrees: “I have 30 years of experience, I’m qualified to testify in federal court on the way to investigate sexual assault crimes, and I’ve never heard of that,” said Lichten. “In all my life I’ve never heard of that.” “Rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.” On 20 January 2012, Rick Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who was then campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight program and was asked by that show’s host about his stance on abortion and whether he believed abortion was wrong even in cases of incest and rape. Santorum responded by saying that although a pregnancy resulting from a rape might be “horrible,” it was nonetheless a “gift of human life” and that “we have to make the best out of a bad situation”: MORGAN: On abortion, you did harden your position on that as you got older. Why was that? SANTORUM: Life. You know, when I decided to run for public life, I was informed very quickly people wanted to know what my position on that was. So I went through the process of trying to better understand the facts. It became very clear to me that life begins at conception and persons are covered by the Constitution and since life — people, a human life is the same as a person, to me it was a pretty simple deduction to make. That’s what the Constitution clearly intended to protect. MORGAN: But do you really — do you really — let me ask you this. Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that — I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest — and you’ve got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped. SANTORUM: Yes. MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father? SANTORUM: I would do what every father must do, is to try to counsel your daughter to do the right thing. MORGAN: And they are looking at their daughter, saying, how can I deal with this, because if I make her have this baby, isn’t it going to just ruin her life? SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation. “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” On 23 October 2012, Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for one of Indiana’s U.S. Senate seats, was engaged in a debate with his Democratic and Libertarian rivals when he expressed his view that “life begins at conception” and that he would only allow abortions in circumstances in which the mother’s life was in danger: I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen. After the debate, Mourdock explained that when he said “it is something that God intended to happen,” he was referring to the creation of life and not the act of rape itself: Mourdock, seeking to clarify his comments in a press conference following the debate, said he had intended to say that “God creates life,” and that any interpretation of his comments to mean God “pre-ordained rape” were “sick” and “twisted.” “What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life,” Mourdock said. “Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don’t think that. That’s sick. Twisted. That’s not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life.” “In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out.” On 23 June 2013, Jodie Laubenberg, a Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives, was debating a measure she had introduced to the House that included a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. When Rep. Senfronia Thompson proposed an exemption for victims of rape and incest, Laubenberg argued against that exemption, saying that when a victim seeks medical care after a rape, “they have what’s called rape kits, that the woman can get cleaned out, basically like” [a procedure known as D and C that is often performed after a miscarriage]. She also noted that emergency contraception is available. A few days later, after she was mocked over her remark, Laubenberg said she was “confused by Democrats’ questions and misspoke” and meant to say that rape victims could “obtain emergency contraception and other treatment” at medical facilities: Rape kits are used to collect evidence in hopes of prosecuting the perpetrator. They play no role in preventing pregnancy or serving as an abortion. Laubenberg was widely mocked on social media, and opponents of the bill called her comments evidence of the misguided science behind Laubenberg’s proposal. Laubenberg told North Texas talk radio host Mark Davis that she was momentarily confused by Democrats’ questions and misspoke. “What I was trying to say is, when a woman goes to the hospital, that they have the procedures there” to help her obtain emergency contraception and other treatment, she said. “No, rape kits do not cause an abortion.” As for the reaction, Laubenberg added: “If that’s the worst that you can complain about me, go ahead.” “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.” In February 2014, the Maine Democratic Party called for the resignation of Lawrence Lockman, a Republican member of the Maine House of Representatives, when a liberal activist made a blog post detailing negative public statements about gays, abortion and rape that Lockman had made years earlier: The post by Maine People’s Alliance activist Mike Tipping mined press clippings to unearth several offensive comments. In one, Lockman implied that HIV and AIDS could be spread by bed sheets and mosquitoes. In another, he said that the progressive movement assisted the AIDS epidemic by assuring “the public that the practice of sodomy is a legitimate alternative lifestyle, rather than a perverted and depraved crime against humanity.” In a 1995 letter in the Sun Journal in Lewiston, a reader quoted a press statement by Lockman, then part of the Pro Life Education Association, saying, “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.” Lockman responded to the controversy by issuing a statement affirming that he regretted his previous remarks: Most of the comments were made during the 1980s and 1990s, but Maine Democratic Party chairman Ben Grant issued a statement calling for Lockman’s resignation. Grant said the comments were “hateful, vicious and offensive” and he called Lockman a “disturbed individual who holds some of the most abhorrent beliefs ever heard from a public official in Maine.” Lockman released a written statement.
[A]: A list collects statements about rape made by Republican politicians.


[Q]: Use of such pills, which include Sanofi SA’s Ambien and other similar drugs, was significantly higher for those in their 50s as well as age 80 and older, according to the findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall about 8.6 million people, or 4 percent of U.S. adults reported recently using sleep medication, CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics said in a report. But data showed higher use among middle-aged adults ages 50 to 59 and the elderly. Six percent of those ages 50 to 59 said they had taken a prescription sleep pill in the last 30 days, and 7 percent of those age 80 and older reported such use. In between, the numbers dip slightly below 6 percent for those in their 60s and 70s. In comparison, just 2 percent of those aged 20-39 said they had recently taken a sleep aid. CDC researcher Yinong Chong said people in their 50s could have trouble sleeping because of work and family stress. “It gives the picture of a sandwiched group who has family, not only children but also probably elderly parents but still you’re likely to be in the workforce, so you get squeezed at both ends in terms of family responsibility and job responsibility,” she said. Sleep may improve when people retire before potential chronic health problems kick in and begin interfering with sleep, Chong said, adding more study is needed. The data also showed that 5 percent of women surveyed said they had recently taken a sleep aid compared to about 3 percent of male respondents, according to CDC’s report. Chong said it was not clear why women were more likely to use the drugs. While previous data have tracked prescriptions dispensed for sleep aids, the CDC said its study is the first based on a survey of actual use of such drugs. Researchers for the Atlanta-based health agency’s National Center for Health Statistics questioned a sampling of adults age 20 and older about whether they had used prescription sleep aids within the last 30 days and asked participants to show interviewers the prescription medication. “You get how many people are actually using them,” Chong said in an interview, noting that prescription data could include multiple prescriptions for one patient or prescriptions that are never filled or even used. “This is actual use.”  Prescription sleep aids have become somewhat controversial because their effect can linger even after some patients wake up. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has begun taking a closer look at sleep drugs, ordering lower-doses for Ambien and similar pills amid concerns that their active ingredient remained in patients’ blood the following morning at levels high enough to make driving and other activities dangerous. And just last month, the FDA rejected an experimental sleep drug from Merck & Co Inc, saying the proposed doses were not safe but that a lower-dose version might be acceptable. Not surprisingly, respondents to CDC’s study who said they slept five hours or less each night or those diagnosed with a sleep disorder were more likely to report using prescription aids. Additionally, more whites and people with higher levels of education also reported greater use, the agency said. Socioeconomic factors are likely behind those numbers, Chong said, since patients must be able to afford a doctor’s care and the medication. According to prescription data from IMS Health, Ambien and other versions of the drug zolpidem was ranked 15th among the most dispensed medications in the United States.
[A]: Use of sleeping pills highest among older Americans: CDC.


[Q]: The agency will judge that benefit with a two-part test: Are e-cigarettes effective in getting smokers to quit? And, if so, does that benefit outweigh the health damage to new e-cigarette users - including teenagers - who never smoked in the first place? That’s a particularly high hurdle for the largest e-cigarette maker, Juul Labs Inc, according to a Reuters analysis of the latest available data on trends in cigarette and e-cigarette use from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data show that e-cigarettes are having little impact in reducing U.S. cigarette smoking, while growth in vaping since 2015 has come entirely from users under 25 years old, including teenagers. Those trends present a special problem for Juul because of its dominance of the U.S. market and its enormous popularity among teenagers, according to more than a half dozen tobacco researchers and medical experts who assessed the data at Reuters’ request. “I don’t see it as a surmountable hurdle,” Suzanne Colby, a tobacco researcher at Brown University, said of the FDA standard for public health benefits. “The data look like their product differentially attracts youth instead of adults, in such great numbers.”  Between 2017 and 2018 - the period when Juul rapidly grew to become the U.S. market leader - e-cigarette use among U.S. adults grew from 2.8% of the population to 3.2%, according to the CDC. But rates of cigarette smoking among adults barely budged, dropping from 14% to 13.7% - not enough to be statistically significant, according to the CDC. (For a graphic showing vaping trends for various age groups, see: here )  Use of e-cigarettes by high-school students, by contrast, shot up by 78% over the same period – from 11.7% to 20.8% of students, data from the CDC and the FDA show. Juul is by far the most popular e-cigarette among teens, with more than half of high school and middle school students naming it as their favorite brand in surveys by the CDC and the FDA. Moreover, the biggest growth in adult e-cigarette use came among the youngest age cohort of adults, people aged 18 to 24. E-cigarette use among young adults is nearly four times more common than among those aged 45 to 64, the CDC numbers show. Another dynamic that undermines the public-health case for e-cigarettes is the large proportion of “dual users.” The most recent federal data show that 41% of adult e-cigarette users continue to also smoke cigarettes. Some studies show dual use could be more harmful than smoking alone. A study last December found people who used both products tested higher than cigarette smokers for a range of volatile organic compounds and other toxins associated with tobacco-related disease. A separate study last year of heart disease risk among e-cigarette users found that dual use was “more dangerous than using either product alone.”  For the industry as a whole, the usage data cast serious doubts on whether e-cigarettes are providing a clear benefit among adult smokers, said Brian King, a deputy director at the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health. “When it comes to net public health impact, you have to consider both ends of the scale,” King said. “Right now it does appear the youth initiation is outweighing the adult use.”  Juul declined a request for an interview with executives including CEO K.C. Crosthwaite, a veteran of Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc who took the helm in September, on how it plans to pass the FDA’s regulatory test. As pressure on the company has mounted, Crosthwaite has made the FDA application process a central goal, laying off 650 employees, including many in marketing, last month in an effort to restructure the company to focus on regulatory approval. In written responses to questions from Reuters, Juul said it believes its products “already are playing a critical role in transitioning adult smokers from combustible cigarettes and have the potential to convert tens of millions of smokers in the U.S.” The company cited studies it has commissioned showing that between 30% to 50% of adult smokers who use Juul “switch completely from smoking cigarettes within six months.”  Juul has said its customers are “the world’s 1 billion smokers,” but the company did not directly address questions about the disparity in youth and adult uptake in the United States. Juul acknowledged it must address any potential impact on nonsmokers who start using e-cigarettes. It said it is “committed to working cooperatively with regulators, public health officials and other stakeholders to combat underage use and convert adult smokers.”  In October, Crosthwaite brought on another Altria executive, Joe Murillo, who helped navigate a successful FDA application for IQOS, a Phillip Morris International Inc product that heats up but doesn’t burn packages of ground-up tobacco. Altria has an agreement with Philip Morris to market IQOS in the United States. The IQOS device is one of only two tobacco products that have successfully made it through the FDA process. Juul’s competitors in the U.S. market face the same regulatory challenge. One rival, Japan Tobacco International, says it is confident in the FDA application it filed in August for its Logic products because it contains company data showing the brand - unlike Juul - is used overwhelmingly by older adults. Anthony Hemsley, an executive for Japan Tobacco International’s U.S. division, acknowledged the population-wide trends in e-cigarette and cigarette use. But he pointed out that the FDA’s decision on net public health benefit will be made on a product-by-product basis - not across the entire industry. He added that Juul has “a significant challenge ahead of them, in overcoming the concerns that exist out there.”   The FDA declined requests for an interview with Mitch Zeller, who heads tobacco regulation at the agency, about its oversight of e-cigarettes. In written answers to questions, the agency did not directly address the population-level data on smoking and vaping trends but said it is “tasked with threading a public health needle” in crafting regulations on e-cigarette firms. A Reuters investigation in November detailed how Juul’s developers used tobacco industry research and patents to formulate its smooth but potent “nicotine salts” blend of liquid nicotine, a key factor in its popularity among teenagers. The report showed company leaders were aware of the product’s popularity among teenagers soon after its 2015 launch, contradicting statements that Juul was caught off guard by teenage use last year. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb told Reuters that he agreed with public health advocates and tobacco researchers that whatever benefits Juul may be having for cigarette smokers are offset by attracting children who otherwise wouldn’t have tried other tobacco products. Before Gottlieb left the department in April, he and his staff explored the option of halting sales of Juul and similar high-nicotine devices if their popularity continued rising among teens. “We could take these products off the market tomorrow,” he said. “We don’t need the applications.”   (For a graphic tracking the rise of vaping amid regulatory delays, see: here)   Juul and the FDA did not respond to questions on Gottlieb’s assertion that the agency should immediately remove Juul and similar products from the market. E-cigarettes have been available in the United States since at least 2007, but the FDA did not formally get authority over the industry until nine years later, in 2016. The agency initially tried to regulate e-cigarettes as a drug, which would have carried more stringent requirements for e-cigarette firms, such as extensive clinical trials or animal testing. E-cigarette makers sued the FDA and won, leaving the agency to regulate the devices as tobacco products. FDA officials started crafting a rule to regulate e-cigarettes in 2011, but the industry pushed back and successfully delayed the rule until May 2016, in the final months of the administration of President Barack Obama. During that time, Juul and dozens of competitors introduced products that were grandfathered into the market because they were already being sold before the regulation took effect. The rule extended certain cigarette restrictions to e-cigarettes, like requiring health warning labels, setting a minimum sales age of 18 and prohibitions on free samples. A key part of the new rule also required e-cigarette makers to submit applications to the agency by August 2018 - demonstrating why their products provide a net benefit to public health - along with studies and data on potential toxins in the products. When Gottlieb was appointed by President Donald Trump to lead the agency in 2017, one of his first moves was to delay that deadline by four years, a decision public health advocates criticized. Just months later, school administrators, parents and politicians raised alarms about the rapid rise of vaping among high schoolers, who were particularly transfixed with the Juul device. Some public health advocates feared the new administration’s commitment to the Obama-era regulations after an initial three-month delay, as the FDA faced litigation from the industry. Gottlieb declined to comment  on whether the some in the administration wanted to kill the regulations but said his effort to push them forward was “not an easy process.” He said he delayed the deadline because the previous administration had not drafted guidelines that companies could follow for the application process, leaving the agency open to a legal challenge from the regulated industries. “They would have sued me, and I would have lost,” he said. But today’s FDA could – and should – pull Juul and other products from the market, Gottlieb said. “I thought that’s where the agency would land,” he said. In March, just before he left the agency, Gottlieb said publicly that the FDA was considering prohibiting sales of cartridge-based e-cigarettes like Juul from the market if teen usage rates went up for a second year in a row. Federal youth tobacco survey data first released in September showed that teenage usage did in fact keep rising, with the percentage of teenagers reporting they used e-cigarettes in the last 30 days growing from nearly 21% to more than 27%. In a statement, the FDA said it has sent more than 1,100 warning letters to retailers selling to minors; issued warning letters to companies marketing teen-friendly e-cigarette products, such as those with sweet flavors; and launched advertising campaigns aimed at e-cigarette prevention in schools. “Taken together, all of these efforts have had a wide-ranging impact on the manufacturing, marketing and selling” of e-cigarettes, the agency said. “FDA’s work is constant in its effort to keep these products out of the hands of kids.”
[A]:
Special Report: FDA targets e-cigs that hook teens but don't help smokers quit.