Question:
(CNN) -- Women seeking an abortion in Texas will have to view a picture of the embryo or fetus and hear a description of its development before having the procedure, under a law that takes effect September 1. The bill stirred some controversy in Texas, but it easily passed through the state House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Republicans. It was signed into law Thursday by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. The law says that at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed, women must undergo a sonogram, a procedure that uses ultrasound to create an image. The doctor, then, is required to give, "in a manner understandable to a layperson, a verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs," the law states. There are some exceptions, including pregnancies that resulted from sexual assault, incest or other violations of law. Women seeking abortions also are exempt if the fetus has been found to have an irreversible medical condition that will cause a disability. "Governor Perry was pleased to sign this important legislation, which bolsters our efforts to protect life by ensuring Texans are fully informed when considering such an important decision," said his deputy press secretary, Lucy Nashed. Critics say the new law is unnecessary. "What no one is focusing on is that this is a mandate to humiliate women who want an abortion," said Yvonne Gutierrez, vice president for public affairs at the Planned Parenthood Trust of South Texas. Texas already requires a 24-hour consent period, and the new law will simply add emotional and financial costs to those seeking abortions, she said. After reading the above, is "Governor Rick Perry" the correct answer to the question "Who signed this bill, which stirred some controversy in Texas, into law on Thursday?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Question:
Brad, Texas (CNN) -- Authorities were working on plans Friday for residents who were forced to flee a wildfire in northern Texas to return home, a day after firefighters made progress battling the blaze that destroyed dozens of homes. The blaze in Palo Pinto County scorched 6,200 acres by Thursday, according to the Texas Forest Service. The fire is burning near the resort of Possum Kingdom Lake, near the town of Brad, about 100 miles west of Dallas. "We feel much better about this fire today," as the blaze is now 50% contained, said John Nichols, a spokesman for the Forest Service. He said evacuations were lifted for some residents forced to evacuate the fire, which was driven by high temperatures and dry winds. The wildfire has destroyed 40 homes and nine RVs since it began Tuesday, the Forest Service said Thursday. Firefighters were receiving support from aerial tankers and helicopters. Authorities are mapping out plans to allow residents to return to their homes, said Palo Pinto County Sheriff Ira Mercer. Authorities also are trying to open the lake for the Labor Day holiday, he said. On Wednesday, evacuations were ordered in several communities on the north side of the lake after the fire charged over a ridge and approached a dam on the lake, CNN affiliate WFAA reported. The wildfire was moving so fast that the Forest Service pulled out of its command observation post, telling journalists and onlookers to get out of the way of the fire. "My house is right through here, though it may be gone," Tom Hardeston told WFAA as he watched the fire. Nearby ranchers battled to save their herds from the encroaching fire. "I'm just moving them from pasture to pasture," Cindi McCoy told WFAA, referring to her livestock. "As one pasture burns, I'm moving them back to that one and bring(ing) them back around." After reading the above, is "Residents can return home since fire danger is mostly gone." the correct answer to the question "Why have spirits begun to rise amid wildfires?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Question:
After the August missile strikes, diplomatic options to press the Taliban seemed no more promising than military options. The United States had issued a formal warning to the Taliban, and also to Sudan, that they would be held directly responsible for any attacks on Americans, wherever they occurred, carried out by the Bin Laden network as long as they continued to provide sanctuary to it. For a brief moment, it had seemed as if the August strikes might have shocked the Taliban into thinking of giving up Bin Laden. On August 22, the reclusive Mullah Omar told a working-level State Department official that the strikes were counterproductive but added that he would be open to a dialogue with the United States on Bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan. Meeting in Islamabad with William Milam, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Taliban delegates said it was against their culture to expel someone seeking sanctuary but asked what would happen to Bin Laden should he be sent to Saudi Arabia. Yet in September 1998, when the Saudi emissary, Prince Turki, asked Mullah Omar whether he would keep his earlier promise to expel Bin Laden, the Taliban leader said no. Both sides shouted at each other, with Mullah Omar denouncing the Saudi government. Riyadh then suspended its diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime. (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.) Crown Prince Abdullah told President Clinton and Vice President Gore about this when he visited Washington in late September. His account confirmed reports that the U.S. government had received independently. Other efforts with the Saudi government centered on improving intelligence sharing and permitting U.S. agents to interrogate prisoners in Saudi custody. The history of such cooperation in 1997 and 1998 had been strained. Several officials told us, in particular, that the United States could not get direct access to an important al Qaeda financial official, Madani al Tayyib, who had been detained by the Saudi government in 1997.67Though U.S. officials repeatedly raised the issue, the Saudis provided limited information. In his September 1998 meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah, Vice President Gore, while thanking the Saudi government for their responsiveness, renewed the request for direct U.S. access to Tayyib. The United States never obtained this access. An NSC staff-led working group on terrorist finances asked the CIA in November 1998 to push again for access to Tayyib and to see "if it is possible to elaborate further on the ties between Usama bin Ladin and prominent individuals in Saudi Arabia, including especially the Bin Laden family." One result was two NSC-led interagency trips to Persian Gulf states in 1999 and 2000. During these trips the NSC, Treasury, and intelligence representatives spoke with Saudi officials, and later interviewed members of the Bin Laden family, about Usama's inheritance. After reading the above, is "Afghanistan" the correct answer to the question "During the two trips taken to the Persian Gulf, the NSC spoke to officials from what country?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no