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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Texas health officials have been offering the vaccinations since Monday, three days after lawmakers were notified that a page had come down with the highly infectious disease. At least two House members and their staffs received vaccinations, and one representative who often takes her 9-month-old to work called her pediatrician to check what precautions she should take. The whooping cough case is being held up as a warning in the Texas House, where politically active vaccination opponents have tried to claim territory. “I know it’s on people’s minds,” said state Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat from Houston. “People speculate about which members are going to come down with it because they didn’t get vaccinated.” Vaccinations are a recurring fight in statehouses, including in Washington state, where a measles outbreak has lawmakers trying to limit vaccine exemptions. A bill in New York would let minors get vaccinated without parental consent, while a California proposal would give state health officials — instead of local doctors — the power to decide which children can skip vaccinations before attending school. Whooping cough is a bacterial infection also known as pertussis that often starts with what feels like a mild cold, followed by weeks of intense coughing fits. The disease gets its name from the sound some people make at the end of a coughing jag when they gasp for breath. There are about 10,000 to 40,000 cases of pertussis reported each year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control. Forty-seven people in the Texas Capitol received pertussis vaccinations supplied by state health officials Monday and Tuesday, said Lara Anton, a spokeswoman with the Texas Department of State Health Services. She said she could not disclose any details about the person who contracted whooping cough, citing privacy, but House pages are typically children around middle-school age. “It was a large number of people who were potentially exposed,” Anton said. In Texas, the number of schoolchildren claiming vaccine exemptions has surged from about 2,300 students in 2003 to more than 56,000. Some legislation filed this year would make it easier to opt out of vaccines or prevent state health officials from tracking exemption data. On Wednesday, worries over vaccination exemptions in Texas could even creep into a vote over a new $250 billion state budget. A Democrat filed one amendment that would study vaccination levels at child-care facilities. “That a case of pertussis was confirmed on the House floor should be a wake-up call,” said Rekha Lakshmanan, director of advocacy and public policy for The Immunization Partnership, based in Houston. “The fact it happened inside lawmakers’ own house should give everyone a reality check.” ___ Follow Paul J. Weber on Twitter: https://twitter.com/pauljweber Claim: Whooping cough case at Texas Capitol leads to vaccinations.

Answer: Nearly 50 people who work at the Texas Capitol have been vaccinated this week because a page contracted whooping cough, a health scare that comes as legislatures around the country grapple with rising immunization exemptions and recent measles outbreaks.


Question: Paragraph: Bryant’s action came despite a federal judge’s ruling last year that struck down a less-restrictive law limiting abortions in the state. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights called the new measure “cruel and clearly unconstitutional” and said it would sue Mississippi to try to block the law from taking effect on July 1. After a bill signing ceremony at the state Capitol, Bryant told reporters that he’s not worried about lawsuits. “They don’t have to sue us. It’s up to them,” Bryant said. “If they do not believe in the sanctity of life, these that are in organizations like Planned Parenthood, we will have to fight that fight. But it is worth it.” Mississippi is one of several states that have considered bills this year to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is found. Abortion opponents are emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court and are seeking cases to challenge Roe v. Wade, the court’s 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. A federal judge in 2018 struck down a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, saying it is unconstitutional. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the only remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi. “Lawmakers didn’t get the message,” Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement Thursday. “They are determined to rob Mississippians of the right to abortion, and they are doing it at the expense of women’s health and taxpayer money. This ban — just like the 15-week ban the governor signed a year ago — is cruel and clearly unconstitutional.”  The law that Bryant signed Thursday says a physician who performs an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected could face revocation of his or her Mississippi medical license. It also says abortions could be allowed after a fetal heartbeat is found if a pregnancy endangers a woman’s life or one of her major bodily functions. The House and Senate both rejected efforts to allow exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Georgia and Tennessee are among the states considering similar bills. Kentucky’s law banning abortion after the detection of a heartbeat was immediately challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union when Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed it on March 14, and a federal judge temporarily blocked it. A federal judge on Wednesday also blocked another Kentucky law that would ban abortion for women seeking to end their pregnancies because of the gender, race or disability of the fetus. Dr. Leana Wen, a physician who is president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement Thursday that the new Mississippi law “is a dangerous policy that criminalizes a safe, standard medical procedure and will endanger women’s lives.” “Patients must be empowered to make their own health care decisions, in consultation with their doctor and their family, and doctors must be able to provide health care to our patients without the threat of prison time,” Wen said. “We cannot accept a world where the right to abortion care depends on where you live or how much money you make.” Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy at the conservative Mississippi Center for Public Policy, praised Bryant for signing the bill. “The heartbeat bill is popular because everyone knows a heartbeat is a sign of life,” Taylor said in a statement. “Intellectual and scientific honesty demands a reconsideration of Roe, a 50-year-old decision based on old science. 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds are showing women that their unborn child is alive.” ____ Follow Emily Wagster Pettus on Twitter at http://twitter.com/EWagsterPettus . Claim: Mississippi governor signs ‘heartbeat’ abortion law.

Answer: Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on Thursday signed one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation — a measure that bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, about six weeks into pregnancy.


Question: Paragraph: This story not only mentions the cost for this drug but also for other treatments for osteoporosis as well. The story did a great job of distinguishing among various fracture types and reporting both relative and absolute risk reduction for vertebra fracture. But then it was disappointing that the risk reduction for hip fractures and that of wrist, leg, or shoulder were reported as only relative risk reduction. Since the story characterized hip fractures as ‘devastating’, it should have provided the reader with some sense of how frequently they occur rather than simply indicating how often they result in a person entering a nursing home or dying within 5 years of having one. Nonethless, because of the elements that were well done, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story gave a rather complete listing of the potential harms associated with the use of this drug, including specific mention of those problems that are unique to this drug as compared with other medications used to manage bone loss. Although the list was complete, the story did not indicate the frequency with which these harms occurred. Nonethless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story provided information about the clinical trial it described, including the number of people studied, the length of time they were studied and the impact on various types of fractures. The story only indicated lifetime risks of fracture (i.e. 1 out of every 2 women over the age of 50) and that 25% of people die within 5 years of breaking a hip without providing some context for these concerns. The 5 year risk of fracture for a woman aged 55 is not the same as that for a woman aged 75; similarly, there are other factors compounding the statistic about death following hip fracture. Since the drug is marketed as being for women who are postmenopausal, rather than simply parroting these seemingly alarming pieces of information, the story should have provided more context for these statistics. This was one weak point in an overall strong story – but an important nuance that should not be overlooked. Comments about this drug and its potential utility from two clinicians noted as not having industry ties to this or other osteoporosis drugs were included in this story. This story compared the benefits, harms and costs for the new drug, with those treatments already on the market. The story opens with a statement about this drug’s approval by the FDA. The story provided a useful explanation of how this medication differed from the other treatments available for osteoporosis. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a news release. Claim: The pros and cons of Prolia, Amgen’s new osteoporosis drug

Answer:
The story detailed what is known about the impact of this drug on various types of bone fractures associated with osteoporosis, how its mode of action is someone different than other osteoporosis treatments, its administration and how the costs compare with other treatments. The one shortcoming of the story was that it had elements of disease-mongering, as explained below. The gestalt about osteoporosis is that women should live in fear of bone breaks. While the story provided very good information about this new treatment, it did not provide much context about the problem. And its inconsistent use of relative vs. absolute risk/benefit data didn’t help.