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'.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Republicans have been getting a lot of mileage out of the recent Supreme Court decision that brought a blow to the Affordable Care Act -- with the court citing a law enacted by Bill Clinton as part of its rationale. In Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, the court said the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows certain corporations to opt out of providing employees with certain contraception coverage -- which were mandated by the ACA -- because of the owners' religious beliefs. Now, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is saying Bill and Hillary Clinton's health care reform plan from the 1990s also would have supported the court's decision. In fact, Hillary Clinton's plan -- which he calls Hillarycare -- would have been more favorable to corporations wanting to evade certain parts of Obama's health care law. ""Hillarycare, 20 years ago, had a broader provision. The bill that (former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y.) introduced for Hillary had a broader provision in favor of corporate right to back out,"" of providing contraceptives based on religious beliefs, Gingrich said on Sunday's ABC This Week. We showed Gingrich's statement to Sara Rosenbaum, a health policy professor at George Washington University, who played a role in drafting health care legislation for the Clinton administration. ""I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about,"" she said. So what is Gingrich talking about? The Clintons' proposed Health Security Act, proposed in 1993, would have required all employers to contribute to employees' health insurance. All benefits packages would have included coverage for ""family planning,"" including birth control. But the original proposal doesn't say anything about religious exemptions for employers. We weren't able to get a hold of Gingrich, but we think he's referring to this provision, included in a 1994 bill that Moynihan sponsored during the health care reform debate. (This bill was, however, separate from the Clintons' plan.) Moynihan's bill said, in part, ""Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage of abortion or other services, if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction."" In plain English, the law would not require an employer to utilize a benefits package that provided benefits that went against their religious or moral beliefs. Gingrich is right that this would be less restrictive than the provisions laid out by the Supreme Court in theHobby Lobby decision, experts said. The court decision established fairly narrow restrictions for corporations looking to claim religious exemption from parts of the Affordable Care Act (though some say it creates a slippery slope). The decision said closely held corporations with strong religious convictions don't have to offer insurance that covers four kinds of ACA-mandated contraceptives. Moynihan's provision was less restrictive because it said employers don't have to purchase plans that include ""abortion and other services,"" but it does not specify the other services, said Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor. Additionally, it includes ""moral conviction"" in addition to ""religious beliefs,"" Jost added. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act on which the court based its decision only applies to religious beliefs. But was creating an exemption for employers based on religious beliefs a primary tenant of the Clintons' health care plan? No, it wasn't. The Clintons' proposal Moynihan's bill was not put forth on the Clintons' behalf. Their plan did not include a religious exemption for employers clause, said Chris Jennings, former health care adviser to both Clinton and President Barack Obama, in an interview. ""That was not related to the plan,"" Jennings said. In fact, Moynihan was routinely critical of the Clintons' proposal, once calling the administration's financing estimates ""fantasy."" Moynihan's proposal was one of several health care reform bills coming out of the 103rd Congress, and it certainly was not the one the Clintons wanted. It saw little floor time because it came up in August 1994, when the health care reform debate was winding down. No other version of the Health Security Act included a religious exemption provision for employers -- including another earlier version also sponsored by Moynihan. The primary health care bill -- sponsored by former Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. and backed by the Clintons -- included a provision that allowed health care providers to refuse to offer or perform services that went against their moral or religious beliefs, such as abortions. But the exemption did not extend to the employers contributing to health insurance costs. The congressional briefing book on the Clintons' proposed plan does not include the provision, either. Additionally, we spoke with experts who said they do not recall birth control as a major source of debate during the Clintons' health care reform efforts. News coverage at the time seems to back that up. Contraception coverage ""hadn't emerged as a goal of reformers at that point,"" said Paul Starr, a public affairs professor at Princeton University. ""So the idea of a 'corporate right to back out' also hadn't come up."" Abortion coverage was the primary point of contention, in terms of family planning, rather than birth control, Rosenbaum said. It's possible that Moynihan added a religious exemption for employers in order to appease those who didn't want comprehensive abortion coverage. But even so, it seems unlikely that the Clintons would have budged on providing universal abortion coverage. Around that time, Lorrie McHugh, a Clinton administration spokeswoman on health, told the New York Times that the administration stood by its original position that abortion should be covered ""where a doctor deemed it medically necessary or appropriate. We'll fight for it."" Our ruling Gingrich said Hillary Clinton's health care plan from the 1990s ""had a broader provision in favor of corporate right to back out"" of providing contraceptive coverage than the one created by the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. We found that Sen. Moynihan did produce a health care bill, as part of widespread reform efforts, that included a religious exemption for employers that was broader than the provisions created by the court's decision. However, Gingrich was wrong to connect that back to the Clintons. The Clintons' health care plans did not include such a provision, and they did not back Moynihan's bill. In fact, Moynihan was critical of the administration throughout the health care debate. Additionally, his proposal came up near the end of the reform efforts and didn't generate much discussion." Claim: "Newt Gingrich Says Hillary Clinton's health care plan from the 1990s ""had a broader provision in favor of corporate right to back out"" of providing contraceptive coverage than the one created by the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision."
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: "The story does not note the cost of a typical statin regimen, Zetia or the combination treatment, Vytorin. This is an important oversight as many people who are prescribed these medications take them for life. The story does mention that these new drugs ""raked in 5 billion dollars last year"". The failure of the combination product to be better than simvastatin alone has significant financial implications. Simvastatin (the generic name for Merck's Zocor) is available for about $1.25 a day. Vytorin costs about $3.35 a day. Most clinicians assumed that the combined product was an advantage if you could not get a patient to an LDL goal with just the statin alone or side effects with the simvastatin prevented an adequate dose. The price for the combination is less than the cost of the components. The story provides no quantitative data and no information on the number needed to treat to show benefit (i.e. prevention of a heart attack or stroke through lowered LDLs) in one patient with the newer medications, with traditional statins or with combination treatment. The story says that there are no real dangers to continuing the drugs Zetia and Vytorin based on the lower drop-out rate and reported side effects in the study. The comments from both parties cast an extraordinarily negative shadow on the study drug and on the company sponsors. Without an appropriate description of the study design, the results cannot be fairly discussed to the public. While the primary endpoint was not obtained with the combination, it did lower LDL and inflammatory markers in excess of that achieved with simvastatin alone. Suggesting the drug did not ""work"" is a bit of a mis-statement. The story encourages patients to keep taking these drugs. The story also does not mention the potential harm of taking statins long-term, especially in high does. Some of these harms are very rare, however, they include: muscle pain and kidney or liver problems. The story provides no real discussion of the data presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting and published in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. And the story didn't assess the quality of the evidence. The study followed people (average age mid-40s) who had an inherited condition (called familial hypercholesterolemia) that is associated with very high cholesterol levels and greatly increased risk of early coronary artery disease. Many of them had been taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering medicines for years. All were randomly assigned to take either a statin (simvastatin, trade name Zocor) alone or a statin combined with another cholesterol-lowering medication, ezetimibe. The study was designed to find out if the combination of the two drugs could slow the growth of plaque in carotid arteries supplying the brain more than the statin alone. Plaque in these arteries is associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack. The two drugs together were more effective at lowering cholesterol than simvastatin alone, but adding ezetimibe did not change plaque measurements in the carotid arteries. The story does mention that lowering cholesterol may have other benefits, but we are not sure how those translate to fewer cardiovascular events or increased survival from these events. No overt disease-mongering. There are no interviews with the study authors or with practicing clinicians. The story reported on data presented at a recent American College of Cardiology Meeting, so there were several thousand cardiologists and other specialists available who could have been interviewed for clinical perspective on the results of this study. There was also no mention of the two accompanying editorials in the NEJM. The editorial by Brown and Tayor nicely identifies the issues related to the study and helps put the results into perspective. Unfortunately, this editorial was ignored by both parties involved in the story. Stating that taking more statins is the answer is incomplete at best. Lifestyle changes along with other drugs may be options as well. Interestingly however, this study raises questions about the simple notion that lowering total cholesterol, and LDL are important to lowering cardiovascular risk. People who are not able to lower their cholesterol enough with statins alone (or cannot tolerate the dose of statins needed to lower it) may wish to discuss with their doctor whether other medications (i.e., rather than ezetimibe) may be appropriate. These include niacin, fibrates, and bile acid resins. When added to statins, they can effectively lower cardiovascular risk. It's clear from the story that the drugs in question are still available to patients, though they should not be considered first-line therapy. The story focuses on new information that there is little to no benefit of newer cholestrol-lowering medications on the prevention of arterial plaque, which translate to little benefit for prevention of heart disease, stroke and cardiovascular-related death. We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. No researcher or cardiologist is interviewed. Quantified data from the American College of Cardiology presentation or from the New England Journal of Medicine article are not directly cited." Claim: Poor test results for heart drugs
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: Dr. William D. Parham will oversee the union's new program designed to help members with mental health issues. The program will be headquartered in Los Angeles. NBPA Executive Director Michele Roberts says the union has "heard our players' stories and are making mental health a priority now." Earlier this season, NBA stars Kevin Love of the Cleveland Cavaliers and DeMar DeRozan of the Toronto Raptors revealed issues they've struggle with on and off the court. Love detailed his experience with panic attacks and anxiety. DeRozan talked about battles with depression. Claim: NBA players' union hires director of mental health.
Example Output:
2