instruction:
Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
question:
Paragraph: "A startling Obamacare claim swept from blog to blog last week: ""SHOCKING: Obamacare Provision Will Allow ‘Forced’ Home Inspections."" One blogger used a photo of armed officers entering a cottage, with the overline, ""We’re from the government and we’re here to raid your home."" Another said ""this is why the IRS has been training with AR-15s."" A reader sent us a post from BenSwann.com, ""Obamacare provision: ‘Forced’ home inspections."" He wondered if it were true. So did we. South Carolina’s concern ""Forced home inspections""? Um, no. The flurry originated with BenSwann.com blogger Joshua Cook on Aug. 13. He picked up the phrase ""forced home inspections"" from a state lawmaker in South Carolina. Back in March, as a group of state legislators discussed a bill to fight the Affordable Care Act, Rep. Rick Quinn offered a specific example of something in the law that worried him: ""The forced home inspections that I’ve heard about."" Cook was there. And the comment nagged him. He noticed people weren’t really writing about the issue. ""It's just been bothering me,"" he told PolitiFact. So he wrote about it last week, talking with an attorney who spoke at the committee hearing and posting a video clip of Quinn’s comment. ""The point is South Carolina legislators believe it, and are convinced this is going to happen,"" Cook told us. Quinn, indeed, had added an amendment to the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act to prevent state workers from conducting any ""involuntary … in-home visitation."" It passed the House, but the Senate didn’t have a chance to vote. Cook says lawmakers hope to revive the legislation in the next session. But that Obamacare program that worries Quinn? It already is — by statute — voluntary. There’s literally nothing to suggest raids or weapons. Home visiting programs Concerned bloggers pointed to an Obamacare-funded grant program for ""maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting."" In 2011, the government announced $224 million in funding. Most of those grants are going to health departments — none, so far, in South Carolina. The idea: fund visits from nurses and social workers to high-risk families to help them develop skills to keep kids healthy, get them ready for school, and prevent child abuse and neglect. Home-visit programs already existed in 40 states. But to Kent Masterson Brown, a health care litigator invited by South Carolina lawmakers to help them avoid implementing Obamacare, the programs suggest overzealous nonprofits telling parents how to raise their children without their consent. Brown raises the specter of a home-schooling family subject to ""intervention"" for school readiness, their children forced into schools and onto medications and vaccines. ""The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits,"" he wrote about the law. But consent is built into the program. A home visitor could no more compel a family to vaccinate kids than a pediatrician could, said Kay Johnson, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School who’s one of the nation’s experts on state home visiting policy. Here’s what the Affordable Care Act says: Home-visiting programs must assure they’ll have procedures that ensure ""the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."" Here’s how that might work, according to Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University, who supports such programs. A low-income mom gets her prenatal care at a community health center. Her doctor asks if she would like visits from a nurse after the baby comes to offer tips and answer questions. Mom could say yes — or no. It’s like the old days of health care, Rosenbaum said, when nurses would visit families to show how to breastfeed, sterilize bottles, care for babies and cope when you’re exhausted. ""It's real health education in the home, is the purpose of it,"" she said. Such programs have a long history backed by peer-reviewed research, she said. They work. ""They make sure that you don't go home to nothing. It's done to help families, not to police them."" A classic randomized trial in Elmira, N.Y., showed nurse visits to families of newborns reduced child abuse and neglect, even years later. They also reduced government spending for low-income unmarried women. Brown, the lawyer, says he’s concerned families have no protection from social workers. He’s concerned workers won’t be well-trained and will overstep families’ rights. Nobody should knock on your door without a badge, he said. ""What I see in this is a monster, frankly. And you can quote me on that,"" he said. That’s the fear. The law, however, specifies that programs be voluntary, their staffs trained and supervised, and the home-visiting models they follow based on strong research. Any ""forced home inspection"" wouldn’t be under the law — it would be in direct opposition to it. And if a family welcomed help but later decided it made them uncomfortable? Samantha Miller, a spokeswoman for the U.S. agency administering the program, said families could stop accepting services ""without consequence at any time and for any reason."" Our ruling Bloggers passed around a claim last week that a provision of the new health care law will allow ""forced"" home inspections by government agents. But the program they pointed to provides grants for voluntary help to at-risk families from trained staff like nurses and social workers. What bloggers describe would be an egregious abuse of the law — not what’s allowed by it." Claim: "Obamacare provision will allow ""forced home inspections"" by government agents."
answer:
0


question:
Paragraph: Anti-smoking groups hailed the ban, which restricts sale and consumption of flavored vaping products immediately and does the same for menthol cigarettes starting June 1, 2020. “The Massachusetts law is a major milestone in the fight to reverse the worsening e-cigarette epidemic and stop tobacco companies from targeting and addicting kids with flavored products,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, which opposed the legislation, said it’s exploring challenging the new law in court, or seeking other ways to change it. “Public health and safety has been dealt a blow by anti-tobacco crusaders exploiting a youth vaping crisis, and by lawmakers bypassing prudent policy-making,” the group said in a statement. In recent months, Massachusetts and other states, including Michigan, Montana, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington, have temporarily banned or restricted the sale of vaping products. But Massachusetts is now the first with a broad, permanent ban in place on all flavored tobacco or nicotine vaping products, anti-smoking groups say. The new law specifically restricts sale of the products to licensed smoking bars such as cigar bars and hookah lounges, where they’ll only be allowed to be consumed on-site. The restriction extends to menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco. It also places a 75% excise tax on nicotine vaping products, gives public health officials new authority to regulate the products and requires health insurers cover tobacco cessation counseling. Baker said he hopes other states adopt similar restrictions but argued that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration are the only ones that can address the issue comprehensively for the nation. “Sometimes someone has to go first,” he said. “It’s pretty clear there isn’t going to be a federal policy on this anytime soon. So, in the absence of that, we had to act.” President Donald Trump has promised for months to approve a national ban on most flavored e-cigarettes. But in recent weeks his administration has walked back that promise, cancelling a planned announcement of a ban in favor of private meetings with the vaping industry and medical professionals. Massachusetts’ decision to extend the ban to menthols is unique. The mint flavor has typically been exempt from such restrictions because it’s long been one of the most popular flavors. Menthols were omitted from legislation passed by the New York City Council on Tuesday after advocates, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, argued their inclusion could lead to harsh police enforcement in the black community. Studies have shown menthol cigarettes are consumed disproportionately by young people and minorities, and anti-tobacco groups and health experts have argued menthol has been marketed to African Americans. But there have been recent signs that reluctance to address menthols is waning. Boston health officials earlier this week prohibited the sale of menthols in convenience stores, and dozens of other communities in Massachusetts and California have taken steps to restrict menthols and other flavored cigarettes. State Attorney General Maura Healey and other supporters said that restricting menthols and other flavored tobacco products is critical because they’ve contributed to growth in the traditional smoking market, which in turn prompted the creation of flavored vaping products targeted at youths. The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network said it hoped the new law sends a message to the industry. “More than 80% of teens who have ever used a tobacco product started with a flavored product, and the tobacco industry knows this,” the organization said in an emailed statement. The legislation responds to growing concern about the health effects of vaping products, including deaths whose exact cause is still being investigated. Massachusetts health officials say there have been more than 200 suspected cases of vaping-related lung injury and three confirmed deaths in the state. In September, Baker declared a public health emergency and ordered a temporary ban on the sale of all vaping products — flavored and unflavored. Baker said Wednesday he’ll lift that ban a few weeks early on Dec. 11, when state health officials are expected to roll out additional regulations. The Tobacco Merchants Association, an industry group, didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. But the Vapor Technology Association, which has challenged Massachusetts’ temporary vaping ban in state court, said a better strategy than the ban would be raising the age to purchase tobacco and nicotine vapor products to 21 and to impose stricter marketing standards on companies. “A ban will drive people back to combustible cigarettes, the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the U.S., or lead to illegal sales with a new and larger black market,” the organization said in a statement. __ Associated Press editor William J. Kole contributed to this report. Claim: No more menthol cigarettes: New ban on tobacco, vape flavors.
answer:
2


question:
Paragraph: In recent weeks, vaccine opponents have made several unsubstantiated claims, including allegations that vaccine trials will be dangerously rushed or that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, is blocking cures to enrich vaccine makers. They’ve also falsely claimed that Microsoft founder Bill Gates wants to use a vaccine to inject microchips into people — or to cull 15% of the world’s population. Vaccine opponents in the U.S. have been around for a long time. Their claims range from relatively modest safety concerns about specific vaccines or the risk of side effects to conspiracy theories that border on the bizarre. The movement is receiving renewed attention, especially as it aligns itself with groups loudly protesting restrictions on daily life aimed at controlling the spread of the virus. Health professionals say vaccine misinformation could have lethal consequences if it leads people to opt for bogus cures instead. “Only a coronavirus vaccine can truly protect us from future outbreaks,” said Dr. Scott Ratzan, a physician and medical misinformation expert at the City University of New York and Columbia University. “But what if the effort succeeds and large numbers of people decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children?” While vaccines for diseases such as polio, smallpox and measles have benefited millions, some skeptics reject the science, citing a distrust of modern medicine and government. Others say mandatory vaccine requirements violate their religious freedom. Rita Palma, the leader of the anti-vaccine group in Long Island called My Kids, My Choice, is among those who say their families won’t get the coronavirus vaccine. “Many of us are anxiety stricken at the thought of being forced to get a vaccine,” Palma said. “I will never choose to have a COVID-19 vaccine. I don’t want the government forcing it on my community or my family.” From the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, vaccine skeptics have tailored several long-standing claims about vaccine safety to fit the current outbreak. When the first U.S. case was announced in January, some alleged the coronavirus was manufactured and that patents for it could be found online. Thousands of deaths later, vaccine opponents are endorsing unapproved treatments, second-guessing medical experts and pushing fears about mandatory vaccinations. They’ve also latched onto protests against stay-at-home orders in the U.S. “The coronavirus has created this perfect storm of misinformation,” remarked David A. Broniatowski, an associate professor at George Washington University’s school of engineering and applied science who has published several studies on vaccine misinformation. Last week, an anti-vaccine activist was arrested in Idaho after repeatedly refusing police orders to leave a playground closed because of the pandemic. The woman, who was there with other families, is affiliated with two groups that protested at the Idaho Statehouse against stay-at-home orders. Facebook groups formed to organize the protests have been peppered with vaccine hoaxes and myths. Perhaps no one plays a bigger role in the conspiracy theories than Gates, who is funding vaccine research. The online movement has centered concerns around a COVID-19 vaccine on false claims that Gates is planning to microchip people with the vaccine or use it to reduce the world’s population. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine critic who helped popularize unsubstantiated claims that vaccines can cause autism, said Gates’ work gives him “dictatorial control of global health policy.” Roger Stone, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, went further on a New York City radio show, saying Gates “and other globalists” are using the coronavirus “for mandatory vaccinations and microchipping people.” Such wild theories can have real-world effects. False rumors that Gates hoped to test an experimental vaccine in South Africa became mainstream after a news site erroneously reported the claim. One of the country’s political parties then sent a letter to President Cyril Rampahosa demanding answers about “deals” struck with Gates. In fact, Gates and his wife are financing a vaccine trial in Philadelphia and Kansas City, Missouri, not South Africa. He also suggested creating a database of people immune to the virus, not implanting microchips. On Monday, during remarks recognizing World Immunization Week, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus criticized vaccine skeptics for spreading misinformation at a time when many families are delaying or skipping routine childhood immunizations because they’re afraid of COVID-19 exposure in doctors’ offices. “Myths and misinformation about vaccines are adding fuel to the fire,” he said. Health experts have repeatedly said there is no evidence the coronavirus was intentionally created or spread. They also insist that vaccines are not only safe, but essential to global health. “Vaccine researchers and anyone who is a vaccine advocate cares deeply about vaccine safety,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia physician and co-inventor of a vaccine for rotavirus, which kills hundreds of thousands of children annually. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. But it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death for some people, especially older adults and people with existing health problems. The vaccine debate is fertile ground for groups looking to sow discord in the United States. Russia seized on it to create divisions before the 2016 U.S. election, and appears to be at it again. A report from a European Union disinformation task force found numerous conspiracy theories in English-language Russian media, including state-run RT, claiming an eventual vaccine will be used to inject nanoparticles into people. “When pro-Kremlin disinformation outlets spread anti-vaccine tropes, they become responsible for those who will hesitate to seek professional medical care,” the EU report said. Claim: Groups sow doubt about COVID vaccine before one even exists.
answer:

2