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]: "Assembly Democrats want to guarantee access to abortion for New York state residents if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. A bill, commonly referred to as the Reproductive Health Act, would change state law to guarantee women the choice to have or refuse an abortion or contraception if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade. Different versions of the bill have been introduced for at least seven years in the Legislature. This year’s debate over the measure included tough questions to the bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick, from members opposed to the bill. ""So, if a baby is born intact and alive but has not yet taken its first breath, it has no rights?"" Assemblymember Steven F. McLaughlin asked. ""Is that the position you are taking?"" ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe,"" Glick said. ""That’s not me, that’s just the law."" Is Glick right? Is that the law? State abortion law Glick said her definition comes from the current state law on abortion. The definition is included in the state’s penal law, or criminal code, which defines the crime of abortion, where someone intentionally causes a pregnancy to be terminated without consent or justification. The law says a person, ""when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive."" So a fetus inside the womb is not considered a person, and therefore does not have rights under state law. That is why someone can legally have an abortion after being pregnant for 24 weeks to preserve the life of the mother. State health law State health law goes a step further in defining when someone is considered born. Under Public Health Law, live birth is defined as ""the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born."" It is up to a medical professional to determine if there is evidence of life in the infant. If the medical professional finds evidence, it is legally considered the birth of a person. ""The reality is that if they are born and alive they are a person and have full rights,"" Glick said in a phone interview. ""And that is the determination of a medical person at the time."" Our ruling Glick said during an Assembly debate that ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe."" State law says a person has been born alive when the fetus has exited the woman’s body and shows signs of life. The law specifically mentions breathing as one of the signs. But the law also mentions other evidence of life, such as a beating heart.s ."
[A]: New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe.


[Q]: "On Nov. 27, 2013, a Madison-based liberal advocacy group used a mass email to promote protests that were planned against Walmart stores for two days later -- Black Friday. The demonstrations aimed to ""expose Wal-Mart’s shameful labor practices and support workers,"" according to One Wisconsin Now, which then made this claim: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" That reminded us of a March 2011 claim by filmmaker and liberal activist Michael Moore. He said in a Madison speech that 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Based on online hits, it became one of our most popular fact-checks ever. So we wondered about the Walmart claim. Wealth, not income In the days before and after Black Friday, leaders no less prominent than President Barack Obama and Pope Francis decried the extent of income disparity in the United States and around the world. Obama called the growing income gap a ""defining challenge of our time."" The pope said that while the earnings of a minority ""are growing exponentially, so, too, is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few."" Walmart, of course, is a big target. According to Forbes, as of May 2013 the international retailer had $469 billion in sales and 2.2 million employees, including 1.3 million in the United States. The corporation has been criticized for low wages; and in December 2012, PolitiFact National rated as Mostly  a claim that more Walmart employees are on Medicaid and food stamps than other companies. But let’s be clear up front: Although income and wealth are related, they’re not the same. Wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth -- the value of a person’s assets minus liabilities. So, things like savings and retirement accounts, minus what is owed on a home mortgage, credit cards, etc. That means a person with heavy debt can have little wealth, or negative wealth, even while earning a six-figure income. One more point before we get to the wealth figures. Walmart was founded by the late Sam Walton, who opened the first store in Arkansas in 1962. Walmart incorporated in 1969 and became a publicly traded company a year later. So, Wal-Mart is not family owned, but rather owned by its stockholders; on the other hand, according to Bloomberg and other news reports, the Walton family members still have control of the company, owning about half of the shares. Group's evidence Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now's executive director, told us his evidence to back his group’s claim is a July 2012 article by economist Josh Bivens, research and policy director of the liberal Economics Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. Bivens wrote that in 2010, the wealth of six Walton family heirs was $89.5 billion, 22 percent higher than in 2007. Meanwhile, the median wealth of American families in 2010 was $77,300, nearly 39 percent lower than three years earlier. (Median wealth refers to the American family that is exactly wealthier than half of all families and less wealthy than half.) As for measuring one against the other, Bivens said the Walton family wealth in 2010 was as large as the wealth of the bottom 48.8 million families in the United States, or 41.5 percent of all American families. Rounded up, 41.5 percent would be 42 percent, the figure One Wisconsin Now claims. But let's keep shopping around a little. Similar claim It turns out that a statement nearly identical to the one made by One Wisconsin Now was uttered in July 2012 by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats. Sanders said the Walton family owns ""more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America,"" a claim PolitiFact National rated . Our colleagues found that Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, compared the Waltons’ cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. That survey was published in August 2012. Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families. The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population. But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth: No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion. A note before we close: Allegretto told us the housing crisis is a key reason that the gap between the Walton family wealth and the wealth of other American families has grown. More Americans were left with ""negative wealth"" because they lost their biggest asset -- their home -- and often significant amounts of their savings, as well, she said. Our rating One Wisconsin Now wrote: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" For comparison purposes, the latest data available, for 2010, the figure is 41.5 percent. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website."
[A]: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.


[Q]: "War, needless to say, is fraught with danger — bullets flying, bombs exploding. But one Florida congressman recently targeted a silent killer that attacks soldiers from within. Rep. Cliff Stearns recently sought — and received — House approval to shift $16 million in Pentagon funding to beef up research for prostate cancer for military members. The Ocala Republican pointed out in a press release that prostate cancer was the second-leading cause of cancer-related death among American men. No argument there. After all, according to the American Cancer Society, only skin cancer is more common than prostate cancer among American men. And only lung cancer kills more of those sufferers. What caught our attention, though, was Stearns’ follow-up assertion: ""In addition,"" he said, ""active duty males in the military are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts."" Twice as likely? Really? We asked Stearns’ office about the congressman’s sources, and spokesman Paul Flusche provided a trio of publications. One looked at how Agent Orange might have caused a spike in prostate cancer rates among Vietnam War vets. Another focused on prostate cancer rates strictly among Air Force personnel. The third, which Flusche labeled as the ""most important"" in supporting Stearns’ claim, was conducted by a team of scientists who compared the rates at which a variety of cancers, including prostate cancer, strike soldiers relative to civilians. That study, conducted by the U.S. Military Cancer Institute, or USMCI, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, was led by Dr. Kangmin Zhu. Zhu’s team actually reviewed six types of cancer — breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, testicular and cervical — for soldiers ages 20 to 59. The data they studied covered from 1990 to 2004. For prostate cancer, the study population included 910 soldiers and 42,751 civilians. In some instances, such as with testicular cancer, there were no differences in the rate of occurrence between the military and civilian populations, the report said. But Zhu and his colleagues, based on their analysis of the numbers, concluded: ""Prostate cancer rates in the military were twice those in the general population."" So Stearns is citing a verifiable statistic contained in a reputable story. The natural question, of course, is why would military members be more prone to prostate cancer? The Zhu study could only speculate. For instance, researchers found discrepancies between military and civilian healthcare providers in how cancer incidents are reported, which could explain at least part of the difference. Zhu also hypothesized that better and more frequent health screening for soldiers might explain why prostate cancer is more prevalent among U.S. troops. Exposure to depleted uranium also might account for the results. But Zhu ultimately said that he could not determine a reason and suggested further study. We ran the findings by Dr. Jonathan Simons, president and CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, a Santa Monica, Calif.-based philanthropic organization that has raised roughly $450 million and helped fund 1,500 researchers at 200 institutions in 12 countries. (The foundation was not connected to Zhu’s work.) Simons observed that Zhu’s mission was not to find why military members seemed more likely to get prostate cancer, but to simply crunch the numbers. In that context, Simons said Stearns was ""absolutely correct"" and justified in stating that military personnel were twice as likely as civilian men to contract prostate cancer. For one thing, Simons noted, ""This is not the junior varsity that did the work. These are really top people."" Still, Simons cautioned that the potential for drawing a ""false correlation"" existed -- namely that military members are more likely to get prostate cancer than non-military members. If military service meant a greater risk of developing cancer, then one would expect soldiers to exhibit higher rates of the disease across the board, Simons said. That was not the case here. Yet he reiterated that much more research into prostate cancer occurrences among soldiers was necessary to determine whether the findings were a ""fluke"" or if there was a definite connection — and if so, what might cause it. And that, Simons observed, was Stearns’ goal in pushing for more funding. ""I actually compliment Representative Stearns for elevating it,"" Simons said. ""Congressman Stearns did a really important bit of public health policy here."" Back to Stearns’ comment. In pushing for $16 million in Pentagon funding to beef up research for prostate cancer for military members, he said that ""active duty males in the military are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts."" Stearns is correct that research shows that military members are diagnosed with prostate cancer at twice the rate as non-military members. However, that same research doesn’t conclude that military members are twice as likely to ""develop"" prostate cancer as Stearns said. The study hypothesizes that one reason for the different diagnosis rate may be because military members are subject to more frequent health screenings. Getting to the bottom of the discrepancy is actually why Stearns requested the money. That’s a needed clarification when considering Stearns’ comment."
[A]:
Active duty males in the military are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts.