Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
Example: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release."
Output: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

New input case for you: Dr. Mark Nichols, an obstetrician/gynecologist who worked for years as the medical director of a Planned Parenthood chapter in Oregon, testified as the first witness for women's health groups who are suing Virginia over laws they say are overly restrictive and limit access to abortion in the state. Nichols, during cross-examination by a lawyer for the state, acknowledged that complications, though rare, do occur and sometimes require hospitalization. The trial in federal court in Richmond began as the abortion debate intensifies nationwide. Several states have passed tough new anti-abortion laws, including Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio and Kentucky. The Virginia laws being challenged include a physician-only measure that bars nurse practitioners and physician's assistants from performing abortions. The lawsuit also seeks to overturn Virginia laws mandating that: All second-trimester abortions must be performed at an outpatient surgical hospital or general hospital. Women must get an ultrasound at least 24 hours before the procedure. Abortion providers who provide five or more first-trimester abortions per month must undergo licensing requirements. Lawyers for the women's health groups suing Virginia skipped their opening statement and began their case by calling Nichols, who currently serves on the Planned Parenthood Federation of America's national board of directors. Nichols said he believes the laws being challenged in Virginia are not medically necessary. He said the vast majority of abortions are simple procedures that can be done in an office setting and that he has trained many physician's assistants and nurse practitioners who have done "just as good a job as the physicians" performing abortions. "There's no medical reason to add these layers of regulation," he said. During cross-examination by Courtney Paulk, a lawyer for the state, Nichols acknowledged that he formed his opinion about Virginia's abortion laws without ever observing an abortion in Virginia or ever talking to any abortion providers in the state. He also acknowledged that although there is a low rate of complications during abortions, some more serious complications would require a woman to be hospitalized. Paulk also questioned Nichols in an attempt to show that Virginia is not an outlier when it comes to its physician-only law. Only 16 states allow nurse practitioners and physician's assistants to perform medication abortions, and only five allow non-physicians to perform suction aspiration abortions. The trial is expected to last about two weeks. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson will decide the case, not a jury.
Output:
Trial begins in challenge to 4 abortion laws in Virginia.