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: In 1976, U.S. President Gerald Ford signed off on the National Emergencies Act (NEA), federal legislation that ended all previous national states of emergency and formalized the process by which the President can declare states of emergencies and undertake special powers during those emergencies. In general, the President may initiate a state of emergency by issuing a declaration (typically via executive order). An existing state of emergency can be terminated by the President himself, or by a joint resolution by Congress. The President can veto such a resolution, however, requiring both houses of Congress to then override the veto by a two-thirds vote. When President Donald Trump hinted in early 2019 his intention to bypass Congress and secure funding for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border by declaring a national emergency — and then followed through on that plan — the subject of “national emergencies” suddenly became a hot topic of public discussion. Since the public tends to associate that term with dire threats such as terrorist attacks, epidemics, or the outbreak of war, many people were surprised to learn that several dozen national emergencies had been declared since the passage of the NEA in 1976 — as reflected in a viral social media post:  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at the time of President Trump’s declaration of a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States in February 2019, some 58 national emergencies had previously been declared by various presidents since 1979, with 31 of them still in effect as of February 2019. The gist of the social media post displayed above is therefore correct, in that every U.S. president since 1976 (excluding Gerald Ford, whose term ended in January 1977) has declared at least one national emergency, although we came up with some slightly different numbers. (Our tally based on the Brennan Center’s list has Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush each declaring one more emergency than stated above, and President Barack Obama declaring one fewer than stated.) In addition, the majority of those emergency declarations remain in effect as of this writing. The focus of these national emergencies has ranged from President Carter’s blocking Iranian government property after fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were taken hostage in Tehran in 1979 and President Reagan’s barring trade with Nicaragua in 1985, to President Clinton’s prohibiting transactions with terrorists who threatened to disrupt the Middle East peace process in 1995 and President Obama’s declaring an emergency over the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009. Claim: Every U.S. president since 1976 has declared at least one national emergency.

Answer: In short, although many Americans may not have been aware of it at the beginning of 2019, the United States has been under one or more states of national emergency continuously for the last four decades.


Question: Paragraph: Tuesday is the final day of Sexually Transmitted Disease Awareness Month, and the state CDC says it’s recommending prevention, screening and treatment. The agency says Maine has seen “dramatic increases” in gonorrhea and syphilis in the last five years. Gonorrhea cases increased nearly 200 percent, to 686, from 2014 to 2018. Syphilis cases have risen by almost 600 percent, to 104, in that same timeframe. Acting Maine CDC Director Nancy Beardsley says the health consequences of sexually transmitted infections are serious enough that residents “know the facts about STDs and get tested if they believe they are at risk.” Claim: Maine stresses test as sexually transmitted infections surge.

Answer: The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention is calling on residents to get tested for sexually transmitted infections amid a spike in cases of gonorrhea and syphilis in the state.


Question: Paragraph: The article does not offer any cost information. The article offers general statements about the “dramatic” and rapid effects of UA from Allergan researchers, but does not provide any numerical context or offer summaries of research with that information. The article notes the side effects of UA and potentially two other similar drugs in the pipeline. The main concern about these agents is the effects they may have on the endometrium (uterine lining) over time. The evidence is generally AWOL. A personal testimonial from a celebrity with fibroids does not stand in for evidence one expects to see from a clinical trial or trials. No mongering here. The article quotes one outside expert whose comments focused on the use of an injectable alternative to the oral drug, and the downsides of this alternative. But it also has a comment from Allergan’s researcher noting that longer-time follow up is needed for UA. These source’s commercial relationships are appropriately disclosed. [Editor’s note: Following publication of this review, we learned that Allergan provides financial support to the White Dress Project. The story would have done well to acknowledge this relationship.] The article mentions some alternative treatments in detail. One strength of the article is that it prominently points out that many women with fibroids who have no symptoms do not require treatment of any kind. The article notes the new drug could be available in the US next year. The drug is already available in the US for another indication but is packaged in doses that are much larger than those used for fibroid treatments. The article makes clear that the advantage of the new drug is that it is an oral medication, and is taken for a limited time. However, ulipristal is not the first oral medication. There are some older oral hormonal medications, including pills in some cases, that have been tried. GnRH agonists (delivered by injection or nasal spray) such as Lupron have been used in limited situations to treat fibroids, but their use is limited by side effects related to medically induced menopause. The story includes comments from two experts and it appears as though the second one had no involvement with the study. Claim: New Treatment for Fibroids Without Surgery

Answer:
This Wall Street Journal article describes the advent of a new oral medication, uliprital acetate, or UA, to treat severe bleeding and other symptoms associated with uterine fibroids. Although the article does a good job of putting Allergan’s new oral drug in context and noting alternative treatments (hysterectomy, myomectomy) and similar drugs in the pipeline, it offers no numerical context that women and their physicians might use to evaluate the relative benefits and risks of the newer treatment. As the article aptly points out, uterine fibroids are a source of significant pain, bleeding, anemia, infertility and disability in tens of millions of women, most of them in their childbearing years. The symptoms and complications can seriously interfere with everyday life. The causes of uterine fibroid have been intensively studied over the past decade. More is understood now about the important role of genetic and hormonal factors in development of fibroids. For decades, the common treatment for uterine fibroids has been their surgical removal (where they often grow back) or hysterectomy. But some newer less invasive procedures such as uterine artery embolization and MRI-guided focused ultrasound have provided other treatment options. Use of medication has been limited to hormone affecting medications that can cause drug-induced menopause. Thus, a pill like UA — already available in Europe — adds a treatment option that may be helpful. What is missing from the article are data documenting and explaining what proportion and kind of patient group the drug would most and least benefit; and other data to help women determine if UA is a good option for them.