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: The company said it will close the plant in Willowbrook, blaming “inaccurate and unfounded claims regarding Sterigenics and the unstable legislative and regulatory landscape in Illinois.” In August, nearly three dozen people sued Sterigenics, claiming fumes from ethylene oxide, used to sterilize medical equipment at the Willowbrook facility, have adversely affected their health. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency closed the plant in February, finding that air sampling by town officials and the federal EPA consistently found high outdoor ambient levels of ethylene oxide. Federal regulators consider the gas a carcinogen. Sterigenics, in the past, has said ethylene oxide is the only process to sterilize medical instruments that is federally approved. “Sterigenics appreciates that the state of Illinois has clearly acknowledged the company’s consistent record of regulatory compliance as well as the safety of the new controls we agreed to implement, and we made every effort to reach a constructive resolution,” the company said in the statement announcing the plant’s closing, adding that Illinois’ political environment makes it unwise to operate the plant. Illinois House Republican leader, Rep. Jim Durkin, has been leading a fight against the company’s effort to continue operations outside Chicago. The Legislature is also considering measures that would phase out use of ethylene oxide except in less populated areas. “Sterigenics got the message that we were never going to let them reopen their doors and poison our communities again,” Durkin said in a statement. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and local officials in July reached an agreement with Sterigenics that would have allowed the plant to reopen after additional emission capture and control equipment was installed. Sterigenics also agreed to fund $300,000 in community projects designed in coordination with the state to benefit the environment and the local community. When that agreement was announced, company President Philip Macnabb said resolution of the matter puts the company a step closer to resuming the work of sterilizing vital medical products and devices for patients in Illinois and beyond. Sterigenics is a division of Ohio-based Sotera Health LLC, which provides safety services to the medical device, pharmaceutical, tissue and food industries. Claim: Chicago-area medical equipment cleaning plant won’t reopen.

Answer: Sterigenics, the medical supply sterilization company that has been battling lawsuits and claims of increased cancer rates from fumes, announced Monday it has decided against reopening its suburban Chicago plant.


Question: Paragraph: A bill that would allow trained pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children 12 years and older cleared the General Assembly’s Public Health Committee in a 17-7 vote this year, but it later died on the Senate calendar due to inaction. Bill supporter, Nathan Tinker, CEO of the Connecticut Pharmacists Association, said his organization doesn’t plan to push hard for it again in the next regular legislative session because he is worried the debate over the General Assembly’s efforts to scrap a religious exemption for some vaccines will ultimately spill over into discussions about the flu shot and likely doom the bill in the short, three-month session. “There is a community of people who are concerned about the impact or potential impact, whether real or perceived, about vaccines,” Tinker said. “And they get a lot of attention from legislators and that can make it difficult.” When the new legislative session opens in February, lawmakers are expected to consider ending the state’s longstanding religious exemption after newly released data showed a continued decline in immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella among kindergarteners. That proposal has already met resistance and some of the concerns raised are like the ones voiced during this year’s discussion of the flu vaccine bill. Legislators were flooded with testimony earlier this year from parents with concerns about whether making the vaccine more convenient could lead to injuries that pharmacists might not be trained recognize. Others questioned the motives of the pharmaceutical industry and necessity of flu shots. Dr. Sandra Carbonari, a primary care pediatrician in Waterbury and the medical director of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, also opposed the bill, but for different reasons. She questioned whether state regulations for providing the flu vaccine to children who receive Medicaid benefits might ultimately make the shot too expensive, and whether DPH’s vaccine program can handle a large increase in the number of providers. She also noted that immunizing a child can be complicated. “Determining the appropriate vaccine for a pediatric age patient is not simple and requires accurate information about the medical history and current state of health,” she said in written testimony. Supporters of the flu shot bill argue that allowing parents to drop by a pharmacy, rather than make an appointment with a pediatrician, would ultimately lead to higher flu immunization rates. The bill had the support of the state’s Department of Public Health, which noted three children in Connecticut died from flu-related complications during the 2017-18 flu season. Pharmacists in Connecticut are currently allowed to vaccinate people 18 years or older. According to DPH, individuals under 18 can be administered the flu vaccine by advanced practice registered nurses at retail locations, such as a CVS MinuteClinic. Sen. Heather Somers, of Groton, the top Senate Republican on the Public Health Committee who co-sponsored this year’s bill, stressed that the legislation is voluntary and requires the consent of a parent or guardian. Somers contends the legislature just ran out of time to act on the bill earlier this year, and she plans to resurrect it when lawmakers convene again in February for the 2020 session. “This is something that saves lives,” said Somers, who helped to organize a mobile flu clinic in her district last year. “I think accessibility is key in our health care system.” Claim: Bill allowing pharmacists to give kids the flu shot at risk.

Answer: The contentious debate about whether Connecticut lawmakers should scrap a religious exemption for certain childhood vaccinations could inadvertently end up sinking efforts to make the flu vaccine more accessible to children.


Question: Paragraph: "At least among Fox News viewers, nothing boosts audience like taking President Barack Obama to task. The day after Fox News host Bill O’Reilly had an interview with Obama, O’Reilly picked up an additional 1 million viewers for his show The O’Reilly Factor. The president sat down with O’Reilly right before the Super Bowl, and the tone of the conversation itself stirred up a flurry of reactions. Here’s a small example from a moment when O’Reilly pressed Obama on the administration’s response to the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. O’Reilly: If (Ambassador to the United Nations) Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration... Obama:  Bill... O’Reilly:  -- off a videotape but your... Obama:  Bill... O’Reilly:  -- your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it's a terror attack... Obama:  Now, Bill... O’Reilly:  Just... Obama:  -- Bill... O’Reilly:  -- as an American... Obama:  -- Bill -- Bill... O’Reilly:  -- I'm just confused. Obama:  And I'm -- and I'm trying to explain it to (you), if you want to listen. No wonder that many observers described the interview as testy. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called it ""the roughest and nastiest exchange"" of the three times that O’Reilly has interviewed Obama. ""He interrupted the president 42 times in 10 minutes,"" Milbank said on MSNBC’s Politics Nation. Of all the words uttered in this 10-minute interview, 40 percent were uttered by O’Reilly."" We wanted to check Milbank’s numbers. Not on the interruptions, but on the word count. We pulled out our digital centrifuge and separated the O’Reilly and Obama utterances. According to our research, O’Reilly delivered 787 words to Obama’s 1,484. This gave O’Reilly 35 percent of the conversation. That’s a little lower than Milbank said but more or less in the same ballpark. We reached out to Milbank and did not hear back. To satisfy our own curiosity, we decided to compare this with another one-on-one interview between the president and a journalist. A couple of days before Obama sat down with O’Reilly, he did the same with CNN’s Jake Tapper. We subjected that transcript to the same rigorous methods and found that Tapper spoke 23 percent of the time, leaving the president the other 77 percent. The precise word counts were Tapper -- 849 and Obama -- 2,886. Milbank’s point was that O’Reilly’s interview was almost as much about O’Reilly as it was about the president. We don’t know about that, but we can say that O’Reilly spoke about 50 percent more than Tapper did in his interview. The topics in the two interviews differed greatly. O’Reilly brought up Obamacare, the Benghazi attack and the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Tapper focused on issues like immigration reform, legalization of marijuana, spying by the National Security Agency, and security at the Winter Olympics in Sochi. O’Reilly had a second installment of his time with Obama that aired the night after the Super Bowl. Milbank’s comment came on the same night, so we’re counting only the segment that had aired publicly at that point. For the record, in the second installment, O’Reilly asked the president about African-American children raised in single-parent households, school vouchers, the Keystone pipeline, a contraceptive coverage exemption for Little Sisters of the Poor, and veterans benefits. Our ruling Milbank said O’Reilly said 40 percent of the words during his interview with the president. That was a little high. By our count, 35 percent would be more accurate. O’Reilly spoke decidedly more than Tapper did in his time with Obama." Claim: Dana Milbank Says Bill O’Reilly spoke 40 percent of the words in an interview with President Barack Obama.

Answer:
Milbank said O’Reilly said 40 percent of the words during his interview with the president. That was a little high. By our count, 35 percent would be more accurate. O’Reilly spoke decidedly more than Tapper did in his time with Obama.