Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

A photograph supposedly showing the gravestone of a woman named Kate McCormick, who passed away in the 1870s from a fatally botched abortion, has been circulating online for several years. In May 2019, the Facebook page “American News X” revived interest in the image:  This is a genuine photograph of a tombstone marking the grave of a woman who passed away in the 1870s after claiming she took abortion-inducing drugs, and we were able to corroborate many of the details of the inscription via contemporaneous news reports. Our one caveat with this Facebook post is the stated date for when the tombstone was erected. While McCormick passed away in the 1870s, it wasn’t until more than a century after her death, in 1997, that an anonymous donor placed the pictured gravestone on her final resting place. The Story of Kate Simpson (AKA Kate McCormick) McCormick’s story can be gleaned from various articles published by newspapers in Tennessee in 1876 concerning an inquiry into her death, the death of her child, and the doctor who was charged with (and ultimately acquitted of) providing her with abortion-inducing drugs. While these reports contained a fair amount of detail such as eyewitness testimonies, a few facts of the case are still a bit unclear. We have done our best to piece together the events that led to McCormick’s death, the trial of the man who reportedly killed her, and the circumstances of her burial below. Katie’s story starts in Humboldt, Tenn., where she was seduced and impregnated by a shoemaker named George Burgess. After becoming pregnant, Burgess sent McCormick to Memphis to have the child with the promise that he would soon follow to marry her. But Burgess never followed. In late January 1876, a stillborn child was discovered at what news accounts referred to as “Mrs. Widrig’s boarding house.” Police arrived and found that the child’s mother, Kate Simpson (alias Kate McCormick), was also deathly ill. She passed away the following day: Katie McCormick Page 1 Wed, Feb 2, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com The Trial of Dr. D.S. Johnson Dr. D.S. Johnson was arrested and indicted on three charges related to the death of McCormick and her child. The Memphis Public Ledger described the charges against Johnson in a 9 February 1876 article, stating that the doctor was indicted for administrating “large quantities of deadly, dangerous, unwholesome, deleterious and penicious pills, herbs, drugs, potions, teas, liquids powders and mixtures” with the intent of causing an abortion, for causing said abortion, and for “feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditated and with malice aforethought kill[ing] and murder[ing] the said Kate McCormick.” A number of witnesses who were with McCormick in her final days provided testimony to authorities. Widrig, the woman who ran the boarding house where the bodies were discovered, told authorities that McCormick had paid Dr. Johnson $25 to terminate her pregnancy. A woman named Mollie Brown provided similar testimony: Mrs. Widrig was sworn and stated that the girl came to her house some time before Christmas, but only stayed one night that she came back three weeks ago, and on Saturday night, or, rather, Sunday morning, she was delivered of a dead child; that Dr. Johnson had been attending her; that her suspicions were aroused and she asked Katie to tell her the whole truth; on Sunday Dr. Frayser had been sent to see Katie by Chief Athy and told her that the girl would die; this she told to Katie, who seemed much affected and made a confession; she said: “Mrs. Widrig, I think my time is short,” and then she added: “Dr. Johnson gave the medicine to destroy my child; tell Dr. Johnson that I promised not to deceive him or tell any person but the time has come when I can keep the secret no longer; I paid Dr. Johnson twenty-five dollars for the medicine; he gave me the medicine some three weeks ago, and said if it did not do its work in six days it would be a failure; I took the medicine from Dr. Johnson to kill my child and paid him twenty-five dollars for it.” Mollie Brown sworn: Katie told me last night that Dr. Johnson sent her medicine by express; she said to me she was satisfied she was going to die, and that Dr. Johnson was the cause of it. Wed, Feb 2, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com Dr. Johnson’s version of events differed. Johnson, as well as two other doctors who visited McCormick before her death, testified that McCormick had been treated only for diarrhea: Dr. Marable testified as follows: On Sunday morning was called by Dr. Johnson to make a call; he told me about the case, and said he had prescribed for diarrhea; the treatment was correct as stated by Dr. Johnson; he said that he had discovered that she had a baby last night, but that she was in danger of dying from the afterbirth; I attended to her immediately, and gave her the necessary remedies to stop the flooding, and the remedies resulted successfully; the girl appeared very weak; Dr. Johnson and I went to see Chief Athy at once with reference to the dead child, and at my instigation Dr. Johnson called upon coroner Spelman to hold an inquest on the dead infant, which inquest was held on Sunday; I advised Dr. Johnson as to the necessary treatment to place the girl under with a view to her recovery; the girl had diarrhea and I prescribed with Dr. Johnson for its treatment; the girl was nervous and troubled in mind; she said she was out of money and had no friends; trouble of mind and excitement very often cause abortions or miscarriages, and the greatest trouble physicians have in such cases is to keep the patients quiet; I think flooding and mental anxiety was the cause of her death. Johnson testified as follows: Three weeks ago I first saw the deceased; she came to my office and told her story, and wanted to hide her disgrace; I advised her not to commit abortion as it was against the law; I called to see her at Mrs. Widrig’s boardinghouse and prescribed for diarrhea; on Sunday morning I called and found that she had a miscarriage; I then called on Dr. Marable; the prescription given her by me was ascitate of lead and morphine; the girl seemed troubled and said she would sooner die than live; she said this both before and after the abortion had taken place. Johnson was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. The Burial of Kate McCormick The story of McCormick did not end with her death. While McCormick’s mother traveled to Memphis after learning of her daughter’s death, she left the city without making arrangements for burial. Similarly, Burgess, the man who reportedly impregnated McCormick, didn’t undertake a visit to view the body. A particularly depressing passage published by the Public Ledger on 4 February 1876 (which contains some racial language common to the era) noted that McCormick’s body was stored in a “pauper’s coffin” in a stable that served as a morgue for the impoverished in Shelby County:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com The reporter who found McCormick’s body sought to remedy the situation by obtaining the help of a Capt. George W. Miller of the Cut Off Saloon. Miller agreed to finance a proper burial, and McCormick’s body was taken to Elmwood Cemetery:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876 – Page 3 · Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com McCormick was interred at Elmwood Cemetery sometime in 1876, but the gravestone shown above was not originally present at her final resting place. This tombstone was erected in 1997 and was paid for by an anonymous person who was apparently moved by McCormick’s sad tale.
A photograph shows a tombstone from 1875 that marks the resting place of Kate McCormick, who reportedly died after a botched abortion.

The council, which covers the city’s business center, was “reviewing (its) weed management methods and investigating other technologies”, a spokeswoman told Reuters in an email, a day after a strike by workers at a nearby council pressured it into trialing an alternative weedkiller. The City of Sydney council currently used Roundup “as a last resort ... when non-pesticide methods such as hand-weeding and mulching have been ineffective”, and began testing alternative products in late 2018, the spokeswoman added. Bayer says Roundup is safe and backed by several regulatory bodies, despite research that found its main ingredient glyphosate was probably carcinogenic. The German company has been hit by massive compensation payouts in the United States this year, over claims its product caused cancer, which have seen its shareprice to plummet. The prospect of Sydney council rethinking its ties to Roundup, a flagship product of U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto Co until a buyout from Bayer last year, shows the pressure that grassroots campaigns and lawsuits are putting on governments about the product even as regulators declare it safe. “Because there’s a lot of emotion around it, local agencies may be moved to make a decision that’s made based on placating the general public rather than the available science,” said Ian Musgrave, a molecular pharmacologist and toxicologist at University of Adelaide. “We should be making decisions on safety based on actual science, not based on our fear or dismay of megacorporations.”  Earlier this week, Blacktown City Council in Sydney’s west agreed to trial an alternative to Roundup after a worker strike over the product left 40,000 garbage bins unemptied. Another four councils around Sydney previously quit using Roundup over possible links to cancer. Last month, an Australian gardener filed the country’s first lawsuit against Bayer, accusing Monsanto of causing him harm from exposure to glyphosate via decades of using Roundup. A Bayer spokesman said the company “encourages constructive dialogue with our stakeholders to build a broader trust in science”. The company had published “extensive research which supports our products’ safety” and was “committed to ensuring our customers continue to have access to these critical products as part of their sustainable agricultural activities”.
Sydney's city council reviews use of Bayer's Roundup weed killer amid cancer fears.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a series of laws affecting multiple areas of the Federal Code, was first signed into law in 1994. The act provided federal funds for services offered to survivors of domestic and sexual violence, created the Office on Violence Against Women within the Justice Department, enhanced the training of law enforcement officers in the area of sexual and domestic violence, and strengthened penalties for certain sexual crimes (including requiring perpetrators of sexual violence to pay restitution to their victims). VAWA has been reauthorized several times since 1994, often with adjustments or modifications. In December 2018, authorization for the Violence Against Women Act lapsed during negotiations over ending a federal government shutdown, as reported by Washington Post at the time: The Violence Against Women Act expired at midnight as the government shut down and temporarily cut off funding for programs that help victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse and stalking. The blow to the landmark 1994 law came after multiple short-term extensions. The act was due to expire on Sept. 30 and on Dec. 7 but received a last-minute reprieve each time. Its programs are funded under the Justice Department, which is affected by the shutdown. VAWA was briefly reauthorized on a temporary basis as part of a continuing resolution passed on 25 January 2019, but it lapsed once again three weeks later. In April 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation to reauthorize the act with modifications that, among other things, lowered the criminal threshold for barring the purchase of firearms by closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and restricting the sale of guns to individuals convicted of stalking, as described by NPR: The most controversial [modifications to VAWA] are new provisions to lower the criminal threshold to bar someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse or stalking charges. Current law applies to felony convictions. It would also close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” to expand existing firearm prohibitions to include dating partners convicted of abuse or stalking charges. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed these putative changes (which we have displayed in full below this fact check) and as a result called on lawmakers to oppose reauthorization of VAWA as proposed in a House bill: The NRA called for a “no” vote and notified Capitol Hill offices this week that the organization was “scoring” how lawmakers vote on the bill to measure future ratings and endorsements in elections … NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said the group supports the underlying VAWA law, just not the new gun restrictions. “The gun control lobby and anti-gun politicians are intentionally politicizing the Violence Against Women Act as a smokescreen to push their gun control agenda,” she told NPR. Gun rights activists say the new provisions are too low of a threshold to deny someone a constitutional right for the rest of their life. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in a speech delivered on the floor of the House, highlighted a National Coalition Against Domestic Violence statistic showing that presence of a gun increased the risk of homicide in a domestic violence situations by 500%: According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, on average, nearly 20 people every minute, 20 people every minute, are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. That is a tragedy and a crisis. One-in-four women experience severe intimate partner physical violence, and one-in-seven have been stalked by an intimate partner to the point at which she felt very fearful, or believed that she or someone close to her would be harmed or killed. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk – hear me – increases the risk of homicide by 500%. That is why we aim to close gun loopholes by expanding the definition of intimate partners to include dating or former dating partners. It is also why this bill has language preventing anybody convicted of a misdemeanor crime of stalking from obtaining a gun. On 4 April 2019, the House passed the inclusion of the gun purchase amendments to VAWA in the face of the NRA’s opposition, as reported by the New York Times: The House … rebuffed a furious lobbying campaign by the National Rifle Association and approved a revamped Violence Against Women Act that would expand law enforcement’s ability to restrict gun purchases by convicted domestic abusers. The legislation passed easily, 263-158, but the divided vote came on what was once a broadly bipartisan measure first passed in 1994. In recent years, partisan rancor over efforts to expand the protections of the legislation have clouded efforts to renew it, and this year, the divide came over gun control. This legislation headed to the Senate, where, the Times reported, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican Senator Joni Ernst would lead an effort to pass their version of VAWA’s reintroduction. Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code (Existing text, Deleted text, Added text): (32) The term “intimate partner” means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person. (A) means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person; and (B) includes— (i) a dating partner or former dating partner (as defined in section 2266); and (ii) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or where the victim resides.”; (33) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that— (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, municipal, and or Tribal  law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, intimate partner, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, intimate partner, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. (34) (A) the term ‘misdemeanor crime of stalking’ means an offense that— (i) is a misdemeanor crime of stalking under Federal, State, Tribal, or municipal law; and (ii) is a course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance of another person that— (I) places that person in reasonable fear of material harm to the health or safety of— (aa) that person; (bb) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; (cc) a household member of that person; or (dd) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or (II) causes, attempts to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause emotional distress to a person described in item (aa), (bb), (cc), or (dd) of subclause (I). (B) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless— (i) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and (ii) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either— (I) the case was tried by a jury; or (II) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise. (C) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.”. Section 922 of title 18, United States Code (Existing text, Deleted text, Added text) (1) (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or described in subsection (g)(8); (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. ; or (10) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of stalking.” […] (g) It shall be unlawful for any person — […] (8) who is subject to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. (8) who is subject to a court order— (A) that was issued— (i) after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; or (ii) in the case of an ex parte order, relative to which notice and opportunity to be heard are provided— (I) within the time required by State, tribal, or territorial law; and (II) in any event within a reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to protect the due process rights of the person; (B) that restrains such person from— (i) harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or (ii) intimidating or dissuading a witness from testifying in court; and (C) that— (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such individual described in subparagraph (B); or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such individual described in subparagraph (B) that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. ; or

In April 2019, when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, the NRA opposed the move due to the addition of amendments that would lower the criminal threshold required to bar someone from buying a gun.