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: "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.
"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."

Paragraph: More than 132,000 cases of the virus have been reported in 123 countries since it emerged in December in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual news conference. “Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of world combined apart from China,” he said in Geneva. Tedros announced that the WHO was launching a coronavirus Solidarity Response Fund. This would to allow people and organizations to contribute to help fund masks, gloves, gowns and goggles for heath workers, as well as diagnostic kits and investment in research and development, including for vaccines. Facebook will match up to $10 million in donations, while Alphabet Inc’s Google will donate $5 million, the WHO and UN Foundation later announced in a joint statement. Social distancing, where people avoid close proximity or touching, is a “tried and tested method” to slow the spread of a virus but “not a panacea” that will stop transmission, the WHO’s top emergency expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. Each country must decide on its own measures to protect its population, he said, adding: “But we’ve also consistently said that blanket travel measures in their own right will do nothing to protect an individual state.”  Detection and isolation of infected people, as well as tracing their contacts and wider testing, must be part of a comprehensive strategy, Ryan said. “As part of an overall comprehensive strategy, there is a place - particularly inside national borders - for potentially restricting movement between zones, as we’ve seen in certain places,” he said. “But there is rarely a justification for blanket bans, unless of course the context and the risk defines that.”  U.S. President Donald Trump has announced sweeping travel restrictions to prevent people from 26 European countries - except for Britain and Ireland - from traveling to the United States in a bid to limit the virus spread. A number of other countries in recent days have announced stepped up border checks, and canceled flights to other countries, in an effort to contain the spread. Trump on Friday declared a national emergency over the fast-spreading coronavirus, opening the door to providing what he said was about $50 billion in federal aid to fight the disease. Claim: Europe is epicenter of coronavirus pandemic: WHO.
Europe has now become the epicenter of a coronavirus pandemic that has claimed 5,000 lives around the world, “a tragic milestone”, the World Health Organization said on Friday.

Paragraph: In real life, finance professionals are rarely so open about seeking psychological help. On Wall Street and in the City of London, hyperambition and an ‘always on’ attitude are richly rewarded and people are often wary of revealing something that could be perceived as a weakness. Two out of three people working in financial services have experienced mental health issues as a result of work or where work was a related factor, according to a 2018 survey, broadly in line with the wider workforce. The Mental Health at Work poll questioned over 4,600 British employees from a range of industries. Many don’t tell their bosses for fear of damaging their careers. “Stigma definitely still exists,” said Beth Robotham, an executive director at Goldman Sachs in London. “Legislation is supposed to protect people from that kind of discrimination and employers are trying much, much harder but it would be naïve of me to say that that wasn’t an issue any more.”   Robotham experienced anxiety attacks when she was in charge of recruiting bankers focused on the healthcare sector for Goldman in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) in 2010. It took her months to tell her managers and seek help. “I just assumed that people like me must just fall out of ‘the system’, and therefore I should just keep quiet or else I will be pushed out,” she said. Robotham, deputy chair of the City Mental Health Alliance, which promotes good mental health among London’s financial workforce, is one of a growing group of executives choosing to speak publicly about their problems to reassure others they are not alone. People can experience anxiety, depression and other mental health issues regardless of their job. But punishing schedules can pile on extra pressure. All-nighters and 100-hour work weeks are not unusual in investment banking, particularly when working on deals or public offerings of debt or equity. Some 44 percent of banking employees said they felt under excessive pressure to perform in their work, according to a survey of over 70,000 people carried out by Britain’s Banking Standards Board last year. A quarter said that working at their firm was bad for their health. In recent years, banks have tried to lighten workloads, relax dress codes and give staff more time to focus on life outside the office to retain talent and avoid costly burnout. But bankers with mental health problems, especially those still early in their careers, are often reluctant to flag them in case their bosses think they can’t hack the pace. Matt Evans, global head of investment bank recruiting and head of firmwide recruiting for EMEA at JPMorgan, said he spent nearly 20 years concealing his struggle with depression until the bank’s ‘This Is Me’ campaign in 2017 prompted him to share his experiences. “There’s been no downside for me in telling my story. The support I’ve had has been significant,” he said. “I got promoted to MD after disclosing my condition.”  Evans was recently diagnosed with bipolar disorder and took three months off last year. He was phased back into work in December and says he is “100 percent convinced” the break will have no impact on his professional prospects. But not everyone shares his confidence around attitudes to mental health. While it is illegal for employers to discriminate against people for having mental health problems, more than half of 2,000 UK workers surveyed by health-tech firm Mynurva feared telling their manager would hinder their chances of promotion, while 57% believed disclosure would harm relationships with colleagues. Mynurva, which provides online counseling, also reported a surge in demand from financial executives who are bypassing their employers’ services because they fear the consequences. “The findings show the fear and embarrassment employees have when disclosing their condition to their employer. And it explains why professionals would rather suffer in silence than seek the necessary help,” said Dr Zain Sikafi, CEO of Mynurva. One in four people will be affected by mental or neurological disorders at some point in their lives and the annual cost to the global economy is estimated at $1 trillion in lost productivity, according to the World Health Organization. Brian Heyworth, global head of client strategy at HSBC and chairman of the City Mental Health Alliance, wants his bank and others to help employees before they become seriously ill.  “In an organization of 235,000 people, some will be having suicidal thoughts but many more will be sliding along the spectrum towards that point. We want to anticipate and prevent that,” he said. HSBC is considering hiring on-site counselors as part of its ‘Healthiest Human System’ initiative, the brainchild of CEO John Flint. JPMorgan’s first UK-based on-site counselor is due to start work at the bank’s offices in London’s Canary Wharf this summer. The bank already has full-time counselors in nine U.S. locations, including New York, Delaware, Chicago and Texas and also offers a Resilience App providing stress management tips. Goldman Sachs is planning to train dozens of UK staff as mental health first aiders so that they can spot signs that colleagues may be starting to spiral due to stress or anxiety — including changes in appearance, working habits or social patterns, Robotham said. Goldman has also launched a paid internship program in the United States for people who identify as ‘neurodiverse’. Neurodiversity covers a wide range of neurological differences including autism, dyslexia, developmental disorders and mental health conditions. As the public profile of mental health grows, employers in Britain who fail to show adequate mental wellbeing provision for staff could be sued under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations Act 1999, which compels employers to assess the nature and scale of health risks at work, including stress. “The harm and detriment to an employer stemming from these kinds of issues are not solely financial, they can inflict greater damage to reputation, public image, productivity and retention,” said Matthew Cole, partner at law firm Prettys. Cole said he had not seen any significant rise in the number of staff seeking damages from employers due to stress-related conditions but said companies were very sensitive to the risk. “If an employee ends up with a psychiatric condition which prevents them from working in an environment where they might have otherwise earned six figures, that can amount to some significant liabilities.”  Prevention is much cheaper. Britain’s Mental Health Foundation estimates that mental health support in the workplace could save UK businesses up to 8 billion pounds a year. The charity puts the cost of providing information and advice on mental health online and via workshops at around 80 pounds per employee per year. Heyworth has grappled with anxiety and depression since childhood and was hired by HSBC after a period of leave from Bank of America. He knows that he is one of the lucky ones, both banks knew of his mental health problems and were supportive. “Make no mistake, we are still in the foothills on this journey,” he said. “The positive thing is that more people are now asking for help, but we also need to accept that there are probably more people who need help too. The next phase of the challenge is creating the conditions where we can reverse that trend.” Claim: Therapy in the office: banks take mental health fight in-house.

In ‘Billions’, a U.S. television show set in the world of hedge funds, traders at the fictional Axe Capital regularly attend sessions with an in-house psychiatrist.