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 new generation of hoop activists is putting another spin on the hoop, which ancient Greeks fashioned from grapevines and used to exercise the hips. Circus hooper Marawa Ibrahim, known professionally as Marawa the Amazing, lives a nomad’s life performing and teaching hula hooping around the world. “Fitness hooping is what I’m really into. Even at circus school I developed a workout using core muscles to push the hoop,” said Ibrahim, who can spin 133 hoops simultaneously and has appeared on the UK reality show “Britain’s Got Talent.”  The 32-year-old Australian said anyone, regardless of age or fitness level, can keep the hoop spinning but choosing the right size hoop is essential. “You can’t hoop with a kid’s hoop. When you were a kid you were half as tall,” she said, adding that a hoop should reach to the hips, at least. “I used to teach a gym class of overweight women. I made hoops that were almost up to their armpits and they could do it.”  Proper technique also means balance. Even the pros can develop lopsidedness, she said, so spin in both directions in order to tone the body evenly, head to toe. Kelly Strycker is the director of Chicago Hoop Dance, a community-based collection of performers, teachers and students who practice hooping as a form of moving meditation similar to Yoga, or Chi-gong, the Chinese system of exercise and breath control. “There definitely is a circus overlay in hoop dance,” said Strycker, adding toned muscles and weight loss are common benefits. “It tends to be a fitness workout because of the nature of the movement.”  Strycker said hoop dancing, which includes elements of yoga, attracts mainly women between 25 and 60 who want a fitness routine they will do. Her classes, held at venues including parks and beaches around Chicago, include 20 to 25 minutes of yoga moves, lunges and squats, and hooping for the wrists, hands, shoulders, legs, hips and waists. “The meditative aspect is in the rhythm, the rocking movement that stimulates the heartbeat, the back and forth,”  she said. Dr. Cedric X. Bryant, chief science officer at the American Council on Exercise (ACE), said a 2011 ACE-sponsored study found that hooping could burn up to 600 calories an hour. “We found that just by the nature of movement it did a pretty effective job,” Bryant said. “The only downside is if one had difficulty mastering movement. But larger hoops reduce the learning curve.”  Ibrahim said a hoop, unlike a trapeze, is portable and fun. “Walk up to any kid and they’ll have a go at it,” she said. “Everyone’s happy.”
[A]: Hoopsters put circus-inspired spin on cardio workout.


[Q]: "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."
[A]: "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."


[Q]: "From Republican U.S. Senate candidates, voters are likely to hear about the economy under President Trump. From Democratic Senate candidates, voters are likely to hear about the need for better health care policy. Nowhere is that more true than North Carolina, where a handful of Democrats are vying to knock out incumbent Republican Thom Tillis. One of them is Cal Cunningham, who has support from the Democratic Party establishment. The Cunningham campaign recently released an ad accusing Tillis of voting to ""take away"" coverage for pre-existing conditions. The Feb. 5 tweet says, ""Without coverage for pre-existing conditions, Susie and her family would be bankrupt. Those protections are exactly what Thom Tillis voted to take away."" Included in the tweet is a video that profiles a mother named Susie who says her daughter has a pre-existing condition. ""Without pre-existing condition coverage, we would be bankrupt,"" Susie says. Cunningham then appears on screen to say, ""Those protections for Susie’s children are exactly what Thom Tillis voted to take away."" Then this text appears over a photo of Tillis: ""Tillis voted against protections for pre-existing conditions."" Is it true that Tillis voted to take away coverage for people with pre-existing conditions? Yes. Tillis voted to repeal a law, the Affordable Care Act, that provides that coverage. While repeal efforts have been unsuccessful, repealing and replacing the ACA has been part of the Tillis platform for years. He voted to repeal the ACA, and later proposed a different law that aims to address pre-existing conditions. But experts say the Tillis plan, along with other Republican proposals, fall short of offering the coverage in the ACA. First, some background. A pre-existing condition is a health problem that someone has before their health coverage starts. Examples include asthma, cancer, diabetes or lupus. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, insurers could deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or inflate their premiums so much that they dropped coverage, as PolitiFact and its partners have previously reported. The Cunningham ad specifically mentions a vote from July 26, 2015: the roll call for a vote to allow the repeal of the health care law. You can see from the bill’s ""statement of purpose"" that it was meant to ""repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 entirely."" The record shows Tillis voted to repeal it. ""Certainly, this provision, if enacted, would have removed coverage of pre-existing conditions because it would have repealed the ACA in its entirety, which would have restored law to what it was prior to 2010, when pre-existing conditions often were not covered in most states, or by federal law,"" said Mark Hall, a law and health professor at Wake Forest University. PolitiFact has repeatedly determined that a vote to repeal the ACA in full would have stripped coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Subsequent GOP-written bills to replace the ACA have not ensured the same level of patients with those conditions. When PolitiFact reached out to the Tillis campaign, spokesman Andrew Romeo didn’t dispute Tillis’ vote from 2015. But he claimed Tillis has always supported replacing Obamacare ""with a health care law that retains that critical provision, in addition to ensuring Americans under the age of 26 can stay on their family's health plan,"" Romeo said. He added that Tillis has ""taken steps to ensure that patients with pre-existing conditions maintain those protections regardless of Obamacare's future."" Romeo was referencing a bill Tillis co-sponsored known as ""The Protect Act,"" which claims to protect people with pre-existing conditions. But experts say that bill falls short. Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow studying health reform and private insurance for the Kaiser Family Foundation, said the bill doesn’t prevent insurance companies from price gouging. The bill includes language prohibiting discrimination based on health status. But, Pollitz said, it doesn’t prohibit insurers from charging women more than men. She paraphrased lines on pages 9 and 10 of the bill, saying ""nothing in the nondiscrimination requirement ‘shall be construed to restrict the amount that an employer or individual may be charged for coverage under a group health plan except as provided in paragraph 3 or individual health coverage’."" Pollitz said Tillis may have attempted to include price-gouging protections, ""but the language they used is riddled with loopholes that would continue to permit discriminatory rating practices."" To prevent price gouging, health bills should offer subsidies. Tillis’ bill guaranteed the issuance of insurance but didn’t provide funding to make premiums affordable, said David Anderson, research associate at Duke University’s Center for Health Policy. Under Tillis’ bill, Anderson said there was little incentive to keep healthy people in the market pool. So insurers would have two options. ""They can either leave the market entirely or dramatically increase premiums to cover a very sick and expensive group of people,"" he said. ""Since there are no premium subsidies in this bill, insurance will be too expensive for individuals who are in good health to purchase."" PolitiFact reported in 2019 that most of the Republican health care plans fail to fully protect people with pre-existing conditions. A fact-check of White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney singled out the plan proposed by Tillis and other Republican senators. It found that the bill included an option for companies to deny certain coverage if they weren’t able to ""adequately"" deliver services. That fact-check quote critics of Obamacare, such as health care consultant Bob Laszewski and former Republican Senate health care policy staffer Rodney Whitlock, saying the Republican proposals fall short of the coverage offered by the ACA. Cunningham’s ad says Tillis voted to take away coverage for pre-existing conditions. It’s true that Tillis voted for a straight repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a move that likely would have left Americans with pre-existing conditions vulnerable. Tillis’ campaign is right to point out that he has tried to address the issue. But experts agree that the Tillis proposal left loopholes insurance companies could use against people with pre-existing conditions. Cunningham’s statement overlooks some of Tillis’ efforts. But it’s correct about Tillis’ vote and the fact that other Republican plans fall short of matching the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions. An earlier version of this fact check quoted an expert who said the ""Protect Act"" introduced by Sen. Tillis would have allowed insurance companies to avoid covering people’s pre-existing conditions. In fact, the bill was written to prevent insurance companies from doing that. The expert has revised her comments. This correction has no bearing on the overall rating. Tillis voted to fully repeal the ACA, and bills proposed by Tillis and other Republicans still fall short of matching the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions."
[A]:
"Cal Cunningham Says Sen. Thom Tillis voted to ""take away"" coverage for people with pre-existing conditions."