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.

Input: Consider Input: "CORRECTION, 5:22 p.m., Oct. 15, 2014: This story has been amended to remove the incorrect original declaration that the $250,000 donation was given before the suits were filed. According to copies of the filings provided by Zac Petkanas, a spokesman for Davis, one of several suits singled out by Davis as the basis of her ad was filed in January 2014, before the donation the next month. This change led us to change our rating of the statement from Half True. (See the original fact check here.) In a TV ad, Wendy Davis said Greg Abbott took a hefty campaign donation before siding with a hospital against patients injured and killed by a drug-taking surgeon. Davis, the Fort Worth state senator and Democratic gubernatorial nominee, consistently depicts Abbott, the state attorney general and Republican choice for governor, as an unethical insider beholden to powerful interests. The narrator of the ad, titled ""Operation,"" says: ""He was a Texas surgeon, performing operations while reportedly using cocaine. Two people died, others were paralyzed. Doctors spoke out,"" the narrator says, ""but the hospital did nothing to stop him. Families and victims sued the hospital. ""Then, weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution from the hospital's chairman, Greg Abbott got involved, using his office to go to court -- against the victims."" Abbott solicited and accepted the donation, we confirmed, and the state intervened in lawsuits pitting patients against the hospital, though he got involved to defend a state law. Senator’s backup By email, Davis spokesman Zac Petkanas said Davis based her claim in part on a July 30, 2014, news story in the Dallas Morning News stating that not long after the chairman of the board of the Baylor Health Care System, which owns the Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano, donated $250,000 to Abbott’s campaign, Abbott weighed in on federal lawsuits against the hospital where a neurosurgeon allegedly had done damage to patients. News report and interview of donor We confirmed from Abbott’s campaign finance filings with the state and an interview with the board chairman and donor, Temple businessman Drayton McLane, that McLane donated $250,000 to Abbott’s campaign in January 2014. That donation, the News story said, came after McLane gave the campaign $100,000 in 2013. Before the six-figure contributions, the story said, McLane’s biggest donation to Abbott had been $25,000. Abbott’s campaign recorded the $250,000 donation as arriving Jan. 23, 2014 -- the very date one of the relevant federal lawsuits were filed against the hospital. Then again, we realized with a nudge from Petkanas after this article initially appeared, one of the several lawsuits was filed Dec. 27, 2013, weeks prior to McLane's contribution. His $250,000 check, a photo of which McLane’s office emailed to us, was dated Jan. 21, 2014. The News story said Abbott and McLane had each told the paper the two had not discussed the lawsuits. McLane also said he didn’t know about the case before contributing the $250,000, the paper said, and he stressed he had no personal financial interest in the nonprofit hospital system; the chairman’s post is unpaid. By phone, McLane told us he’s known Abbott since before Abbott, originally a Houston lawyer, won election as a Harris County state district judge in 1992 and gave the $250,000 after Abbott asked him for a large contribution. McLane said he hadn’t spoken with the Republican nominee since. Asked what he expected for the eye-catching contribution, McLane said: ""I’m not expecting to get anything back. I believe in strong good government. Unfortunately, on both sides, there are heavy contributions."" On top of not knowing about the lawsuits described by Davis before making his donation, McLane said, he hadn’t long been chairman of Baylor Scott & White Health, which owns the Plano facility, having become chairman when healthcare systems merged in October 2013; McLane previously chaired Scott & White Healthcare. Abbott in court As noted in the News, the federal suits against the Baylor system and Plano hospital challenge the constitutionality of a state law requiring the plaintiffs to prove Baylor acted with actual intent to harm patients -- which the suing plaintiffs/families call an impossibly stiff burden. Petkanas of Davis’ campaign provided copies of several lawsuits filed on behalf of patients and families, each one alleging a neurosurgeon, Christopher Duntsch, was permitted by the Plano hospital to perform surgeries under the influence of illegal drugs and alcohol, causing harm. Those suits also challenge action by state lawmakers in 2003, while overhauling laws regulating lawsuits seeking damages,  to delete a definition of ""malice"" in the law, hence ""eliminating a common-law right arbitrarily in light of the purposes of the statute leaving only an impossible condition before liability will attach,"" the lawsuits say. A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, Lauren Bean, emailed us the state’s nearly identical March 24, 2014, filings in three plaintiff challenges to the law. In the filings, the state said it has a statutory right to intervene in a case when the constitutionality of a state law is at issue. On March 31, 2014, a week after the state filed its request, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis granted the request to intervene ""for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of Texas law,"" Solis wrote. His order said no parties to the litigation objected. It’s undisputed an attorney general may seek to get involved in a federal suit to defend a state law, but some lawyers told us it’s up to the official to do so -- or not. Attorney Kay Van Wey, who represents some plaintiffs in the suits against the hospital, said by email Abbott’s move was unusual and unreasonable, though she didn’t object, she said, because there is no legal way to do so; we didn’t divine what she meant by that. Van Wey further said Abbott ""is defending a law that essentially gives immunity to hospitals for credentialing dangerous physicians. The law, as it now stands, denies access to the courts for good, taxpaying Texas citizens, who through no fault of their own, were butchered by a highly dangerous surgeon. ""Even if we prove the hospitals were grossly negligent in hiring and retaining a dangerous surgeon,"" Van Wey said, ""...it isn't enough under the current state of the law. In Texas, we have to prove ‘malice,’ meaning we have to prove the hospital had a subjective intent to harm the patient. That is considered to be an impossible standard. It is clearly an erroneous and completely unfair law. He didn't have to intervene in our lawsuits. He chose to."" The News story quoted Bean saying McLane’s contributions played no role in his decision to intervene in the suits. Besides, Bean said, the ""state is not defending the hospital or the doctor in this case — or their alleged conduct. If the hospital or doctor have violated the law, then they will be held accountable, and nothing in the state’s court filings opposes the plaintiffs,"" patients and families, ""on that front,"" she said. Bean gave us the agency’s full response sent to the News. In it, Bean said the state ""will not be putting on any defense of any action by the hospital or any doctor. The state will not put on any evidence or make any argument whether the hospital’s actions or the doctor’s actions violate the law. The state does not condone, support or defend the actions of the hospital or doctor. The only thing the state will argue is that the law is not unconstitutional."" Outside lawyers An Austin lawyer who helped write the 2003 change told us he believes the attorney general was bound to defend the revised law as Abbott is doing. Michael Hull emailed: ""The AG intervention is consistent with federal and state law. The AG is defending the constitutionality of a statute. His office has not taken a position on the facts alleged in the petition nor has the AG chosen to defend the hospital or the doctor."" Hull later said such constitutional challenges are rare, ""but when challenges do occur, it is common for the AG to defend the constitutionality of the statute."" Hull and Michael Guajardo, the Dallas president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, each pointed out any litigant is required to notify the state of a federal challenge to a state law’s constitutionality We asked if that formal notice touched off Abbott’s intervention. Not so, Bean said, adding the attorney general’s office has no record of receiving the notice, which court filings say was sent by certified mail. Instead, Bean said, Jonathan Mitchell, the state solicitor general, learned of the suits from a March 10, 2014, news story in the Texas Lawyer magazine. Petkanas, told we hadn’t uncovered proof the McLane donation prompted Abbott to enter the lawsuits, said by email the ad didn’t assert a cause and effect -- only that McLane gave his campaign donation before Abbott intervened. Our ruling Davis said that weeks ""after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon. Davis’ statement needs clarification – that Abbott’s intervention was limited to defending the constitutionality of Texas’ tort-reform laws. That makes this statement . – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."

Output: "Weeks after accepting a quarter-million-dollar campaign contribution"" from a hospital board chairman, Greg Abbott went to court against victims of a drug-taking neurosurgeon."


Input: Consider Input: In a report issued Thursday, the U.N. health agency said the number of measles cases from January to June this year is double the number reported for the same period in 2018. Measles is among the world’s most infectious diseases and is spread mostly by coughing, sneezing and close personal contact. Although numerous European countries have introduced stronger vaccination policies, stubborn pockets of vaccine refusal have fueled epidemics across the continent. Last month, the German government proposed making measles immunization mandatory for children and employees at kindergartens and schools; there have been more than 400 cases of measles in Germany this year. With more than 84,000 cases, Ukraine accounted for the vast majority of measles in Europe, followed by Kazakhstan and Georgia. In February, Ukraine’s health ministry said eight people had died of measles. An expert WHO committee said four countries — Albania, the Czech Republic, Greece and the U.K. — have now lost their status as having eliminated measles. Measles is preventable with two doses of the vaccine, but there is no effective treatment once people are infected. “If high immunization coverage is not achieved and sustained in every community, both children and adults will suffer unnecessarily and some will tragically die,” said Dr. Guenter Pfaff, chair of a WHO expert committee on measles in Europe. In some developed countries, measles vaccination rates dropped sharply following the publication of a flawed study in the late 1990s that linked the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism. Health officials have struggled to debunk misperceptions about the vaccine’s safety ever since. “Misinformation about vaccines is as contagious and dangerous as the diseases it helps to spread,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in a statement this week. In 2017, WHO estimated about 110,000 people died from measles worldwide, mostly children under 5-years-old.

Output: ‘Dramatic resurgence’ of measles seen in Europe, WHO reports.


Input: Consider Input: The Soil & Water Outcomes Fund, a partnership with the Iowa Soybean Association and third-party verification company Quantified Ventures, will then sell the environmental credits created to polluters such as cities and companies, including Cargill itself, Ryan Sirolli, Director of Row Crop Sustainability at Cargill, told Reuters. The program is a welcome source of farm revenue as the price of crops such as corn and soybeans hovers near the lowest in several years after the bruising trade war between the United States and China and, now, the coronavirus pandemic that has kneecapped the global economy. It also follows rising criticism of intensive farming practices and the companies that rely on them. Environmentalists criticized Cargill last year for delaying a self-stated goal of ridding its supply chain of crops produced on deforested land. Farmers in Iowa have enrolled almost 10,000 acres in a pilot program this spring, but the group is aiming to expand the program next season and broaden it beyond Iowa, Sirolli said. Farmer Lance Lillibridge of Vinton, Iowa, enrolled about 300 acres in the program this season and expects to get at least $35 an acre, which will offset some of his planting costs. “For a farmer, our margins are really small. In fact, right now there’s no margin at all ... This is the first time that we are rewarded for our sustainability efforts,” Lillibridge said. Funded by grants from Cargill and the Walton Family Foundation, the Soil & Water Outcomes Fund will pay farmers $30 to $45 per acre this season, depending on what environmental results are confirmed, said Adam Kiel, director of conservation for the Iowa Soybean Association. “We’ve got ambitions to go more broadly beyond Iowa in future years,” Kiel said. “Farmers view this as another revenue source on their farm that’s not a government payment.”  Cargill estimates the practices would prevent runoff of 100,000 pounds of nitrogen and 10,000 pounds of phosphorus this year and sequester 7,500 tons of carbon in soils, equivalent to taking 1,480 cars off the road. The fund is among the first of its kind to seek to verify and monetize the environmental benefits of farming practices such as no-till farming and planting cover crops like grass to prevent erosion. Historically, conservation schemes have paid farmers for more environmentally friendly practices but have not verified their benefits. “We’re seeing a big shift in terms of the way we look at sustainability and how the industry is looking at it,” Cargill’s Sirolli said.


Output: Cargill-led fund to pay U.S. farmers for carbon capture, exchange credits.