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.

[Q]: Paragraph: The extraordinary safety measures that will govern the May 20-22 session were delineated in a letter Wednesday from Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan to the House minority leader. Legislators will have to pledge to follow Illinois Department of Public Health guidelines to prevent the spread of the highly contagious and potentially lethal coronavirus. They include pre-session testing of all legislators for COVID-19. Eschewing the traditional Capitol setting, the House will be called to order six blocks away at the Bank of Springfield Center in downtown Springfield, to take advantage of the spacious convention center floor for social distancing. The Senate, whose membership is half the House’s 118 seats, will meet in its regular chamber, Senate President Don Harmon said in a statement. The Oak Park Democrat rallied senators to return to action with the “cooperative spirit of bipartisan achievement” they’ve shown before. “This global pandemic has decimated our state and local economies regardless of political affiliation,” Harmon said. “From far-flung living rooms, kitchen tables and home offices, senators have been working together — while apart — to figure out what we can and need to do now.” Legislators, whom Gov. J.B. Pritzker declared essential workers and not subject to his seven-week-old stay-at-home order scheduled to expire May 30, have nonetheless been absent from the Statehouse since early March to prevent spreading sickness. That period represents the heart of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring-session calendar, ending with a scheduled May 31 adjournment and typically a budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Pritzker implored lawmakers to help those left out of initial federal relief deals. “Lots of people fell through the cracks,” Pritzker said at his daily COVID-19 briefing in Chicago. Relief won’t come from the state treasury. Tax revenue lost because of the pandemic has opened a $7 billion deficit in the current budget and next year’s. Illinois will be dependent on the federal government, Pritzker said. “We need to rely upon federal government and its support for all the states in order for us to provide the services that people need or for us to pay for the education that our kids need, and for us to support our businesses and our families,” Pritzker said. Madigan’s letter to House GOP Leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs said all state representatives must pledge to abide by public health guidelines for safely congregating. In addition to pre-trip testing, they include agreeing to undergo body temperature checks upon entering the building for sessions, wearing provided face coverings whenever meeting with staff members or colleagues, avoiding outside meetings or social engagements, and undergoing another test upon returning home. It won’t be the first time lawmakers convened outside of the current Statehouse, which welcomed its first session in 1877. In recent history, the legislative chambers were undergoing renovation when then-Gov. George Ryan called a special session in the summer of 2000 to temporarily remove the state sales tax on gasoline during a price spike. Sessions were conducted in the auditorium of the Howlett Building next door to the Capitol. ___ Check out more of the AP’s coronavirus coverage at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak ___ Follow Political Writer John O’Connor at https://twitter.com/apoconnor Claim: Safety measures to govern Legislature’s return to capital.
[A]: The Illinois General Assembly will return to Springfield for three days next week to take up a spring session workload long delayed by the coronavirus pandemic.


[Q]: Paragraph: The 18,000-square-foot (1,700-square-meter) clinic in Fairview Heights, 12 miles (19 kilometers) east of St. Louis, will provide abortion services as well as family planning when it opens in mid-October, Planned Parenthood officials said at a news conference Wednesday. “While health care access in Missouri continues to hang on by a thread, Illinois is well-positioned to serve as a health care hub in the region,” said Yamelsie Rodriguez, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri. Planned Parenthood has been battling Missouri’s health department for months to try and keep open its St. Louis clinic. The state has refused to renew its license to perform abortions, citing concerns that include “failed abortions” that required additional surgeries. Missouri’s Administrative Hearing Commission is deciding the fate of the St. Louis clinic. Meanwhile, Missouri women have been increasingly getting abortions at the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, another St. Louis suburb. Deputy Director Alison Dreith said 58 percent of the abortions performed at the Hope Clinic through August of this year involved Missouri women, and 37 percent were women from Illinois. Missouri is among several conservative states to pass new restrictions on abortions in the hope that the increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court will eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation in May banning abortions at or beyond eight weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest. A federal judge in August temporarily blocked implementation of the law until the legal challenge plays out in court, which could take several months. During an annual inspection of the St. Louis clinic in March, Missouri health investigators cited numerous concerns, including reports of failed abortions. Planned Parenthood said it has already addressed those concerns and defended its clinic. It claims the state is using the licensing process as an excuse to stop abortions. The state initially let the clinic’s abortion license lapse at the end of May, then announced more definitively in June that it would not renew the license. The clinic remains open while the hearing commission decides its fate. Planned Parenthood officials say construction of the Fairview Heights clinic began last year, but details weren’t released until near completion to avoid protesters and potential construction delays. Claim: New abortion clinic being built in Illinois, near St. Louis.
[A]: Planned Parenthood has quietly been building a new abortion clinic in Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, as women concerned about the uncertain future of Missouri’s sole abortion clinic flock across the state line.


[Q]: Paragraph: The story tackles this issue head on, as here: “Novartis has not disclosed the price for its therapy, but analysts are predicting $300,000 to $600,000 for a one-time infusion.” This is satisfactory, but barely. Here’s how the story addresses benefits for the CAR T-cell treatment: “In the pivotal trial testing the therapy in almost a dozen countries, 83 percent of patients went into remission. A year later, two-thirds remained so.” That information would be much more useful if it placed those numbers in context. For example, how many patients were enrolled in the study? 83 percent could be 13 out of 16 patients, or it could be 1,328 patients out of 1,600. And how does 83 percent compare to standard treatment? Similarly, is the story telling us that two-thirds of all patients were still in remission a year later? Or did it mean that two-thirds of the 83 percent were still in remission a year later? Contextual information would have provided some much-needed clarity here. The story notes: “The revved-up immune system [that results from the CAR T-cell treatment] becomes a potent cancer-fighting agent but also a dangerous threat to the patient. Serious side effects abound, raising concerns about broad use.” The story then goes on to discuss those potential harms more thoroughly. Ordinarily, this would be sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. But given the severity and frequency of serious, life-threatening events, the story needed numbers: What percentage of patients in the trial experienced a serious immune reaction? How many died? There are also plenty of unknowns with a new cancer treatment, such as lack of data on long-term prognosis. The story refers to a “pivotal trial testing the therapy in almost a dozen countries,” but offers little additional information. While the story offers an in-depth history of the research that led up to this treatment, readers are given very little information about the trials that provide insight into how well the treatment works and its associated risks. There’s really no disease mongering here, though there is one point that we’d like to single out. The story states that the CAR T-cell treatment “initially would be available only for the small number of children and young adults whose leukemia does not respond to standard care. Those patients typically have a grim prognosis” [emphasis added]. What does it mean to “typically have a grim prognosis”? It’s a fine turn of phrase, but it doesn’t actually convey much information — and it’s scary. In a case like this, it would likely be better to let the numbers speak for themselves. Or, if a story does include this sort of language, to back it up with some numbers. All of the sources in the story are patients, parents of patients, are associated with the pharmaceutical industry, or were involved with the relevant research being discussed. That said, the sources — and their conflicts of interest — were all clearly identified. Still, the story would have benefited from some independent, expert input. First of all, the story makes clear that CAR T-cell treatment — if approved — would be available only to those for whom conventional treatments have not worked. That’s a key point. Second, the story does articulate the difference between this form of immunotherapy (which is customized to the patient) and other immunotherapy techniques, which are so-called “checkpoint inhibitors” and are not individualized. As mentioned earlier, we would have liked to have seen more data on the success rates of standard treatment vs these treatments. The story clearly lays out where this treatment is in the FDA review process, how that process may unfold, and what this may mean for future availability. In addition, the story explains that CAR T-cell treatment would not be rolled out universally, but — if approved — would be available only through designated treatment facilities that have the relevant expertise. The story does a good job here, articulating what makes this treatment novel and how it works relative to other immunotherapy treatments. The story goes well beyond any news release. Claim: First gene therapy — ‘a true living drug’ — on the cusp of FDA approval
[A]:
The story focuses on a treatment called CAR T-cell therapy, which is under review by the FDA for use in treating children with leukemia who are not responding to standard treatments. The story does a good job of describing the treatment, how it’s different from similar therapies, and how expensive it is. However, the story could have done a better job of discussing the numbers on both the remission rates and the side effects. This story looks specifically at using an immunotherapy treatment to tackle treatment-resistant leukemia in young people. And while childhood leukemia is rare, it is the most common form of cancer in children and adolescents. That alone makes the subject matter here of widespread interest. But the story also makes clear that the CAR T-cell treatment may be only the tip of the iceberg, with an array of other research initiatives aimed at using customized immunotherapy to tackle a variety of cancers. That means that the CAR T-cell treatment is being viewed — fairly or unfairly — as a bellwether for individualized immunotherapy in general. As a result, the way that the public perceives this type of cancer therapy may be strongly influenced by the way people perceive CAR T-cell treatment for juvenile leukemia cases. That makes it especially important for stories to give readers accurate information, and to place it in a context that helps people understand the associated pros and cons. Overall, we think the story does a pretty good job here.