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: Bryant’s action came despite a federal judge’s ruling last year that struck down a less-restrictive law limiting abortions in the state. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights called the new measure “cruel and clearly unconstitutional” and said it would sue Mississippi to try to block the law from taking effect on July 1. After a bill signing ceremony at the state Capitol, Bryant told reporters that he’s not worried about lawsuits. “They don’t have to sue us. It’s up to them,” Bryant said. “If they do not believe in the sanctity of life, these that are in organizations like Planned Parenthood, we will have to fight that fight. But it is worth it.” Mississippi is one of several states that have considered bills this year to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is found. Abortion opponents are emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court and are seeking cases to challenge Roe v. Wade, the court’s 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. A federal judge in 2018 struck down a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, saying it is unconstitutional. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the only remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi. “Lawmakers didn’t get the message,” Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement Thursday. “They are determined to rob Mississippians of the right to abortion, and they are doing it at the expense of women’s health and taxpayer money. This ban — just like the 15-week ban the governor signed a year ago — is cruel and clearly unconstitutional.”  The law that Bryant signed Thursday says a physician who performs an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected could face revocation of his or her Mississippi medical license. It also says abortions could be allowed after a fetal heartbeat is found if a pregnancy endangers a woman’s life or one of her major bodily functions. The House and Senate both rejected efforts to allow exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Georgia and Tennessee are among the states considering similar bills. Kentucky’s law banning abortion after the detection of a heartbeat was immediately challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union when Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed it on March 14, and a federal judge temporarily blocked it. A federal judge on Wednesday also blocked another Kentucky law that would ban abortion for women seeking to end their pregnancies because of the gender, race or disability of the fetus. Dr. Leana Wen, a physician who is president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement Thursday that the new Mississippi law “is a dangerous policy that criminalizes a safe, standard medical procedure and will endanger women’s lives.” “Patients must be empowered to make their own health care decisions, in consultation with their doctor and their family, and doctors must be able to provide health care to our patients without the threat of prison time,” Wen said. “We cannot accept a world where the right to abortion care depends on where you live or how much money you make.” Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy at the conservative Mississippi Center for Public Policy, praised Bryant for signing the bill. “The heartbeat bill is popular because everyone knows a heartbeat is a sign of life,” Taylor said in a statement. “Intellectual and scientific honesty demands a reconsideration of Roe, a 50-year-old decision based on old science. 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds are showing women that their unborn child is alive.” ____ Follow Emily Wagster Pettus on Twitter at http://twitter.com/EWagsterPettus . Claim: Mississippi governor signs ‘heartbeat’ abortion law.

Answer: Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on Thursday signed one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation — a measure that bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, about six weeks into pregnancy.


Question: Paragraph: "During his widely watched monologue about his newborn son’s recent medical emergency, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel offered a bit of praise for one group of Americans that doesn’t receive much love these days: members of Congress. ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Is that what happened? Basically, yes. Kimmel has a point that by approving the increase, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress rebuked Trump’s proposal and made clear a distaste for cutting NIH. Budget experts, however, may quibble that Kimmel oversimplified a bit on the numbers. First, some background. NIH conducts and disseminates research into the causes, diagnosis, prevention and cure of human diseases. It is a collection of 27 separate institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Explaining Kimmel’s comment starts with the release earlier this year of the Trump White House’s budget blueprint. While this proposal did not offer significant detail, it did include a cut for NIH. Specifically, the proposal would reduce spending for fiscal year 2018 by $5.8 billion compared to the fiscal 2017 level, through a range of reorganizations, consolidations and other changes. That’s short of a $6 billion cut, as Kimmel described it, but it’s pretty close. Fast-forward a few weeks to congressional negotiations over a bill to keep the government funded and avoid a government shutdown. Under the agreement reached by lawmakers, NIH would see a $2 billion increase in its budget over the five-month period of extended federal spending. (That's on top of the funding that was already expected.) According to news reports, the agreement provides an additional $400 million for Alzheimer’s disease and an additional $476 million for the National Cancer Institute, $120 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative, and an additional $110 million for the BRAIN Initiative, which aims to map the human brain. Where Kimmel oversimplified matters is on the numbers. Specifically, the $2 billion increase did not directly replace Trump’s $5.8 billion proposed cut -- the two actions are distinct, since they targeted two different fiscal years. It would have been more accurate to say that the $2 billion increase directly rejected a separate Trump proposal to cut $1.2 billion from NIH for the remainder of fiscal 2017, which concludes at the end of September. (Remember, the $5.8 billion cut was to be for the 2018 fiscal year, not for the rest of 2017.) Indeed, the Trump proposal to cut NIH by $5.8 billion in 2018 is still officially on the table since Congress hasn’t yet acted on spending for 2018. The agreement Kimmel cited only addresses a five-month extension of federal spending. That said, Kimmel’s overarching point -- that Congress effectively rejected Trump’s proposal to cut NIH -- is on target, experts say. Steve Ellis, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed that while Kimmel oversimplified the numbers, he added that the talk show host’s ""overall message is accurate. The administration sought cuts and Congress boosted the funding."" And the decision to protect NIH in the budget has been supported not just by Democrats but also by key Republicans, including the chairmen of the two chambers’ health appropriations subcommittees, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., as well as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. ""There is no appetite on the Hill for cutting NIH,"" Stan Collender, a budget expert at the consulting firm Qorvis MSLGROUP, told PolitiFact. Our ruling Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up." Claim: President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion.

Answer: "Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up."


Question: Paragraph: "There was no discussion of the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables compared to the typical American diet of largely processed/fast foods. But it’s safe to assume most readers know the costs from their regular grocery shopping. The story provided information that the two groups did not differ in terms of rates for breast cancer recurrence, the main outcome of the study. The story only provided the information that the two groups did not differ in terms of rates for breast cancer recurrence, not survival. The story did mention that neither of the groups lost more weight, so such a high-fiber diet is not a guarantee for weight loss. The story does not mention any harms of a diet high in fiber and low in fat. Possible ""side effects"" of such a diet might include bloating, gas, and diarrhea or loose stools. The story discusses the study design and presents the absolute number of women who had a breast cancer recurrence in each group. The story does not mention that the study participants self-reported their dietary habits. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story only quotes the author of an editorial on the newly published data. Her comment needs further explanation, so more information from her or from other researchers or clinicians not affliated with the study would have been useful, especially regarding a discussion of other benefits associated with a high-fiber low-fat diet focusd largely on plant-based foods. The story failed to mention other breast cancer recurrence strategies such as hormone and biological medications, etc. Other studies have suggested that weight management via diet and exercise may play a role in the prevention of certain types of breast cancer in post-menopausal women  (e.g hormone receptor negative). The story did mention prevention of excessive weight gain via diet and exercise would be the ""next frontier in cancer prevention research"". The story does not specifically mention the availability of a fresh fruits and vegetables for all populations, but the focus of the story is on the lack of evidence that a diet concentrated on these foods has any benefit for breast cancer recurrence. No preventative behavioral modification related to diet is advocated. The story was also suffienciently clear about what the ""treatment"" was (number of servings of vegetables and fruits, etc) such that if a person wanted to ""treat"" themselves in this manner they could replicate the intervention. The story mentions that this is a newly published study showing no evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is not directly related to a decreased risk of breast cancer recurrence. Increasing fruits/vegetables in the diet is not a novel concept. The story does not appear to be taken directly from a press release and there is independent reporting." Claim: Intensive Vegetable-Fruit Diet Shows No Effect on Breast Cancer Return

Answer:
"This was a brief story (only 242 words) that accurately described the main findings of an important randomized trial. Specifically, this story discussed a newly published study showing no evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is related to a decreased risk of breast cancer recurrence. These findings are important for breast cancer survivors to know about, but the story did not include adequate context. Further developing the story to include known treatments to prevent recurrence, both medical and behavioral, would have strengthened the story considerably. Including another perspective from an expert in this field would have been helpful in interpeting the results and in addressing this key issue. Other research suggests that weight management via diet and exercise may play a role in the prevention of certain types of breast cancer in post-menopausal women  (e.g. hormone receptor negative). The story did mention prevention of excessive weight gain via diet and exercise would be the ""next frontier in cancer prevention research"". In a similarly designed study recently published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, there was a small (about 6-pound) weight loss difference in the group of women assigned to a high-fiber, low-fat diet, and fewer breast cancer recurrences in this group (though the difference was not statistically significant). The story failed to mention other evidence-based breast cancer recurrence strategies currently available such as hormone and biological medications, etc. These medications can reduce the risk of recurrence by about 50% or more. The story does not mention any potential ""side effects"" of such a high fiber diet, which might include bloating, gas, and diarrhea or loose stools. While the reporter cites Dr. Gapstur, an editorial writer on the newly published data, her comment needs further explanation. More information from her and from other researchers or clinicians not affliated with the study would have been useful, especially regarding a discussion of non-cancer related benefits associated with a high-fiber, low-fat diet focused largely on plant-based foods. (Publisher note and correction on July 26, 2007:  We should have noted that this was not an enterprise story by the Washington Post. The Post slashed an original 733-word story by the Associated Press to come up with this almost 500-word-shorter version.)"