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: "Charlie Crist’s most recent TV attack labels Republican Gov. Rick Scott as ""extreme"" on women’s issues. A few days after he snagged the endorsement of Planned Parenthood PAC, Crist issued an ad showing a series of women attacking Scott’s record on abortion, birth control and equal pay for women. One of the claims in the ad is that Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."" PolitiFact Florida has fact-checked multiple claims about Crist’s record on abortion and we gave him a Half Flip for holding various positions on it throughout his career -- even before he switched parties to become a Democrat. Several media reports have also covered bills signed by Scott that limit access to abortion. Here we decided to fact-check Scott’s record on birth control. (Technically the Florida Democratic Party paid for the ad, but the Crist campaign announced the ad and promoted it.) Legal decisions about birth control during Scott’s tenure We reached out to Scott’s office and campaign and Crist’s campaign and searched news archives and found very few statements Scott made related to employers and birth control. Scott, a former health care executive, campaigned for governor on his opposition to President Barack Obama’s health care law in 2010. The law includes access to birth control for women; however, that was not at the root of Scott’s opposition to the law, which was more broadly about the federal government’s role and the individual mandate. We only found a couple of statements Scott made related to whether employers should be forced to provide birth control. The 2010 health care law required that most plans include birth control coverage without out-of-pocket costs. The Obama administration carved out a religious exemption for most churches and some parochial schools, finalized on Jan. 20, 2012. Certain religious entities, including Ave Maria University in Florida, opposed Obama’s rules. On Feb. 10, 2012, the White House announced a compromise: If a religious employer objected to providing birth control in its health plan, the employer would not have to pay for it, but the insurance company would pay. The next day, Newsmax TV asked Scott his thoughts about that decision while he attended the Conservative Political Action Conference. Scott said: ""This week what they did with regard to the Catholic Church and the contraceptives, it's an example [of] when government gets more involved in something they take away your rights. And this is, they are telling the Catholic Church what they have to buy. The government should not be telling us what type of insurance we should buy with our own money. The change they made makes no sense -- saying the insurance company is going to pay for it? That makes no sense. Money is going to be coming out of the Catholic institutions’ pocket to buy that insurance, so they are paying for it."" About two weeks later, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined six other states in a lawsuit to challenge the birth control mandate arguing that it violated religious institutions' First Amendment rights. (Scott wasn’t a plaintiff.) In July 2012, a federal judge in Nebraska threw out the lawsuit arguing that the states failed to prove they would suffer immediate harm once that part of the law was enacted. The states appealed, but lost in 2013. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain companies like Hobby Lobby that have religious objections can opt out of the birth control mandate. The companies opposed providing certain types of contraception that they believe is equivalent to inducing abortion, including morning-after pills and IUDs, while they didn’t oppose other methods of birth control. We asked a Scott campaign spokesman if Scott made any statements about Bondi’s lawsuit, the Hobby Lobby case, and in general if he thinks employers should be able to deny women birth control coverage. Spokesman Greg Blair pointed to one statement Scott made after the Hobby Lobby ruling, when a radio station reported that Scott said that the Supreme Court ""upheld our freedom of religion again this week."" ""Gov. Scott believes that people should have access to the contraception and health care they want, and he also believes in religious freedom,"" Blair told PolitiFact Florida. Our ruling Crist’s ad states that Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."" We struggled to find statements Scott made about employers and birth control. His spokesman didn't give us a denial when asked. We found a couple of statements which show he is against the federal government dictating to companies that they must provide birth control -- something that certain religious institutions opposed. It’s also worth noting that Scott doesn’t appear to be flat out against birth control but it’s clear that overall, he doesn’t like telling employers what they have to cover." Claim: "Charlie Crist Says Rick Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."
[A]: "Crist’s ad states that Scott ""thinks employers should be able to deny women coverage for birth control."" We struggled to find statements Scott made about employers and birth control. His spokesman didn't give us a denial when asked. We found a couple of statements which show he is against the federal government dictating to companies that they must provide birth control -- something that certain religious institutions opposed. It’s also worth noting that Scott doesn’t appear to be flat out against birth control but it’s clear that overall, he doesn’t like telling employers what they have to cover."


[Q]: Paragraph: A nurse prepares a bottle of donated milk for a baby at Son Dureta's Hospital in Palma de Mallorca, Spain March 10, 2006. REUTERS/Dani Cardona The chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, is commonly used in plastic food and beverage containers and in the coating of food cans. Until now, environmental and consumer activists who have questioned the safety of BPA have relied on animal studies. But the study by British researchers in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that among 1,455 U.S. adults, those with the highest levels of BPA were more likely to have heart disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities than those with the lowest levels. U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials said they would review the new findings, which were not yet published when the agency issued a draft conclusion in August that BPA is safe at current exposure levels. “We have confidence in the data that we’ve looked at and the data that we’re relying on to say that the margin of safety is adequate,” FDA official Laura Tarantino said at a meeting of experts advising the agency on whether it made the right call. “There are things you can do if you choose to reduce your level of bisphenol A,” Tarantino said. “But we have not recommended that anyone change their habits or change their use of any of these products because right now we don’t have the evidence in front of us to suggest that people need to.”   Panel chairman Martin Philbert declined to say what the committee’s next move would be. BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastic, a clear shatter-resistant material in products ranging from baby bottles to medical devices. BPA can mimic the hormone estrogen in the body. People can consume BPA when it leaches out of the plastic into baby formula, water or food inside a container. Some retailers and manufacturers are moving away from products with BPA. Canadian officials have concluded BPA was harmful. Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, said the study’s design did not allow for anyone to conclude BPA causes heart disease and diabetes. “On the other hand, though, bisphenol A has been very intensively studied in a very large number of laboratory animal studies. And the weight of evidence from those studies ... continues to support the safe use of products containing bisphenol A,” he said in a telephone interview. The British researchers, who acknowledged their findings are not proof that the chemical is causing the harm, analyzed urine samples from a U.S. government health survey of adults ages 18-74 representative of the U.S. population. The 25 percent of people with the highest levels of bisphenol A in their bodies were more than twice as likely to have heart disease, including heart attacks or type 2 diabetes, compared to the 25 percent with the lowest levels. At the FDA panel meeting, several scientists and activists said the FDA ignored animal studies finding health concerns and some called for the chemical to be banned in food containers. Democratic U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, who heads the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said the FDA has “focused myopically on industry-funded research.”   Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, released a letter he wrote to FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach asking why the agency has not appointed a safety panel to review BPA. Tarantino said nothing was ignored but industry-funded studies finding no harm were important in the conclusions. The panel is expected to present its advice to the FDA next month. Tarantino, head of the FDA’s office of food additive safety, said there is talk of government scientists doing their own BPA safety studies, but that could take years to conduct. Claim: Common plastics chemical linked to heart problems.
[A]: A major study links a chemical widely used in plastic products, including baby bottles, to health problems in humans like heart disease and diabetes, but U.S. regulators said on Tuesday they still believe it is safe.


[Q]: Paragraph: Gov. Tom Wolf thanked both health systems in an announcement on Thursday. Wolf, a Democrat, praised the rival companies for reaching the agreement following their 2014 contract. In-network access to UPMC facilities for Highmark patients was set to expire in 2019. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, UPMC Altoona, UPMC Bedford and multiple other hospitals and specialty facilities will remain open to Highmark patients. The locations include centers that specialize in transplant services, cancer treatment and psychiatric health. “This is medical care that simply is not available anywhere else in the region, and denying affordable access to this vital care is just not acceptable,” Wolf said in a release. UPMC executive vice president David Farner praised the agreement. The pact helps preserve community-based care for patients across the state, Highmark president Deborah Rice-Johnson said. The health system agreement doesn’t address a dispute between Williamsport-based PMF Industries Inc. and UPMC, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. UPMC disagreed on PMF’s use of reimbursement estimates that are based on Medicare rates. Evangelical Community Hospital has sided with UPMC in rejecting its reimbursement system. Claim: New deal between UPMC, Highmark extends in-network access.
[A]:
Under a new agreement, Highmark health insurance will maintain in-network access to University of Pittsburgh Medical Center hospitals in western Pennsylvania.