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 Input: "In a show of Republican muscle, Florida lawmakers passed several bills relating to abortion during this year's legislative session. One proposal awaiting the signature of Gov. Rick Scott requires young women who want a judge to waive the parental-notification requirement to obtain the waiver in a circuit court closer to their home rather than a wider-reaching appeals court. Opponents insist HB 1247 violates the privacy of young women who live in small communities and know most people in their area, including people who work at the courthouse. But supporters say it prevents teens from crossing the state to find a sympathetic judge in order to get an abortion without their parents' knowledge. Sen. Steve Oelrich, a Republican from Gainesville and cosponsor of the Senate version, had an interesting take during a May 5, 2011, debate on the Senate floor. ""You can't give a child an aspirin in school without permission,"" he said. ""You can't do any kind of medication, but we can secretly take the child off and have an abortion. We should support it (HB 1247) with all our hearts and souls if parental responsibility means anything to us."" Oelrich's claim left us wondering: Is it really that hard for students to get over-the-counter medication at school? We should explain that we're not ruling on Oelrich's statement that young women can ""secretly"" have abortions. We already know this is legal in certain cases under Florida law. Implementation of HB 1247 would limit which courts can make the decisions for women who seek waivers of the parental notification law, not strip their ability to have secret procedures. Florida law The Florida Statutes have straightforward directions for handling prescription medication at school. The law requires a student's parent to submit a written statement with the medicine that permits a trained school official to administer a dose. The note must also explain why the medicine must be taken during the school day. The prescription medicine must be administered at school by a qualified official and then be counted, stored in the original container, and kept in a secured place. Beyond that, the law does not address the use of over-the-counter medication. The statutes leave that decision up to local school districts. We set out to check each one to learn if Oelrich's claim is . We tracked down policies for 62 of 67 counties. Most were available online. It took time to be sure, but Oelrich is right. Every district requires parental consent for non-prescription medication, sometimes in writing and sometimes by phone. Notifying a parent is the minimum step for many other districts, including Charlotte, Baker and Miami-Dade. These districts require a physician's note, too. ""We don't administer anything in Charlotte County without doctors' orders,"" said Gail Buck, supervisor of the county's school health services. ""No cough drops, no Tylenol."" Aspirin warnings There's another part to this claim: Oelrich specifically invoked aspirin on the Senate floor. Some of the school nurses we interviewed practically shuddered at the word. The reason? Aspirin use among children is linked to the development of Reye's Syndrome, a lethal disease that sets in after a viral infection and affects all organs of the body, according to the National Reye's Syndrome Foundation. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are among entities that recommend not using aspirin, or combination medicine containing aspirin, for children under 19 during fever-causing illnesses. ""We stay away from all aspirin products and stuff,"" said Catherine Reckenwald, student health specialist for Citrus County Schools. ""You don't know if a child has an allergy, so you need to have very specific instructions for each student."" Reckenwald said Tylenol is more appropriate for children, but she does not keep a supply in her clinic. This is standard practiceat most of the school health centers we contacted. ""We do not have what is called 'standing orders,' "" said Janice Karst, St. Lucie County School Board director of communications. In case you were wondering, students are allowed to self-administer epinephrine auto-injectors, metered dose inhalers, pancreatic enzyme supplements and diabetic supplies if they have a doctor's note and parental consent. Our ruling The thrust of Oelrich's point is correct: You can't give a child an aspirin in school without permission. To administer any non-prescription medication, school officials must have approval from the parent. And in some cases, the schools also need a note from a doctor -- even for cough drops. While Oelrich is right about the permission part, he specifically mentioned aspirin so we should add that giving aspirin to children is considered risky because of the medicine's connection to a deadly disease. But that wasn't exactly Oelrich's point in a debate over abortion and a minor's right to privacy."
Example Output: You can't give a child an aspirin in school without permission. You can't do any kind of medication, but we can secretly take the child off and have an abortion.

Example Input: In July 2020, readers asked us about news articles claiming that a couple in Radcliff, Kentucky, had been placed under house arrest for refusing to sign an agreement to self-isolate and quarantine, after one of them tested positive for COVID-19. Elizabeth Linscott told WAVE 3 News that, although she had no symptoms, she got tested for COVID-19 as a precaution before a planned visit to her parents in Michigan in July. According to Linscott, after she tested positive the "health department" sent her a document for her signature, in which she was asked to "agree to comply to call the health department prior to leaving my house for any reason." Linscott told WAVE 3 that she refused to sign the document because of a provision that she said required her to notify public health officials in advance of traveling to the hospital for care, but that she was not refusing to self-isolate in principle, adding "I have to go to the ER, if I have to go to the hospital, I'm not going to wait to get the approval to go." Linscott's husband Isaiah said that a few days after his wife refused to sign the agreement, officers from the Hardin County's Sheriff's Department and a public health official visited the family's home and produced three written orders, for the couple and their daughter, effectively forcing each of them to quarantine at home. WAVE 3 reported that the Linscotts were "ordered to wear ankle monitors." The family's story was covered by national news outlets including The Associated Press, Fox News, and the New York Post. In response to our inquiries, the Hardin County Sheriff's Office confirmed, without naming the Linscotts, that on July 16 its officers had "delivered Notices and Orders to Isolate and Quarantine," as a result of a court order. In response to our inquiries about the Linscott case, the Hardin County District Court provided Snopes with a copy of the three isolation orders that the Sheriff's department served upon the Linscott family. The isolation orders, dated July 16 and signed by Hardin Circuit Court Judge Ken Howard, specify that each of the Linscotts were ordered to isolate at home for 14 days, by virtue of a petition from the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, which covers several counties including Hardin County. That petition outlined the following: The "Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order" asks the recipient to agree to several provisions, including: "As long as I do not require hospitalization, I will self-isolate at home, reducing contact with all others as much as is practicable" as well as "I will not leave my house without the approval of the Department for Public Health" and "I will not travel by any public, commercial or healthcare conveyance such as ambulance, bus, taxiwithout the prior approval of the Department for Public Health." On July 15, the district health department filed its petition with Hardin Circuit Court, and the following day Judge Howard issued an injunction ordering the Linscotts to comply with the provisions of the order. The ruling was based in part on the "nature of the disease," as well as Linscott's positive diagnosis, of course, but Howard also specified that his decision to grant the isolation order was also partially based on Linscott's "conduct," noting that she had "declined to voluntarily agree to isolate and has conveyed that she will leave her home to get supplies and do errands which she considers necessary." Howard also ordered the couple to wear ankle monitors, to be installed by a company called Envivo Health, and ordered the district health department to pay for the monitors and ensure the family has "adequate provisions of food, medicine or other necessities during the period of confinement." The isolation order issued by the district health department, and the injunction signed by Howard, were both based on Kentucky state law. Specifically, Chapter 212, Section 245(6) of the Kentucky Revised Statutes states that: "County, city-county, and district health departments may: [] Issue written orders directed to the owner or occupant of any property, or to any person, firm, or corporation whatever, commanding, within the time and manner specified in the order, compliance with applicable public health laws of this state and all regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services or the county board of health. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section andKRS 212.210, any health officer may institute and maintain mandatory or prohibitory injunction proceedings in the appropriate Circuit Courts of this state to abate nuisances that are or may be a menace to the health of the people of the state or community, and to compel compliance with the public health laws of this state and the rules and regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the county board of health and the orders described in this section or inKRS 212.210." Title 902, Chapter 2, Section 50 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations further states that: "Whenever any person has been implicated as a possible reservoir or possible source of infection of any communicable disease, the local health department or the Cabinet for Human Resources shall employ such measures as are necessary to secure adequate isolation, restriction of employment or other control procedures that may be necessary to insure cessation of transmission of infection." Based on the evidence provided to Snopes by the Hardin County Sheriff's Office and Hardin Circuit Court, it's true that the Linscotts were indeed ordered to remain confined to their home for 14 days, after Elizabeth Linscott contracted COVID-19 and subsequently refused to sign a "Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order." Hardin Circuit Court did indeed order the couple to be fitted with ankle monitors to ensure their compliance, and the isolation order papers were given to Isaiah Linscott during a visit from the Hardin County Sheriff's Office. Most of the basic facts of the case were therefore accurately reported in the news articles mentioned above.
Example Output: A Kentucky couple were placed under house arrest in July 2020 after a woman diagnosed with COVID-19 refused to agree to self-isolate because it would require her to get prior approval to go to the hospital.

Example Input: Shares of Antigenics Inc, the tiny New York-based biotechnology company which has been developing the vaccine for 11 years, rose as much as 58 percent on the news. It is the first time the Russian government has approved a drug that was not first cleared in its country of origin, according to Antigenics, and clears the way for the company to start generating revenue from Oncophage later this year. The company plans to file for approval of the vaccine in Europe by the end of the year, based on a relatively new set of guidelines in that jurisdiction. Regulators in Russia approved Oncophage based on a subset of data from a late-stage clinical trial that in 2006 failed to show the vaccine delayed the recurrence of kidney cancer. In the subset of patients those whose cancer was least likely to recur following surgery Oncophage lengthened the period before which the disease recurred by 45 percent, or an average of 1.8 years, versus those in the control group. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not consider subset analysis a valid measure of success or failure since all manner of sub-populations can be carved out retrospectively. Therefore the vaccine stands little chance of approval in the United States. "What this company needs to do now is a trial based on their findings with the good prognosis patients," said Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer at the American Cancer Society. "If they have a positive finding at that point then I'm going to be excited, and then I believe it would go before the FDA very quickly." Conducting such trials, however, could take up to 10 years and vast sums of money, and would take the product's development cycle to 20 years. "No one in their right mind would authorize that," said Garo Armen, the company's chief executive, in an interview. "Even if we had the money it wouldn't be practical." Unlike their U.S. counterparts, Russian regulators have accepted the validity of the subset in part because roughly a third of the 604 patients enrolled in the late-stage trial were tested in Russia, and about 70 percent of those fell into the subset of patients whose prognosis following surgery was better than that of the total population. Antigenics thinks it will be able to win approval elsewhere in the world too. European regulators can now approve drugs on a conditional basis, meaning companies can market their products while simultaneously conducting additional follow-up of patients or further clinical studies. If at the end of the trial period the regulatory agency were not satisfied, it could pull the drug from the market. "Filing in Europe won't be a slam dunk, and will probably be more difficult than in Russia," said Armen, who added that the European review process would likely take 12 to 18 months. The Russian approval caps years of dogged determination to bring the vaccine to the market despite multiple setbacks and investor skepticism of cancer vaccines in general. Oncophage is designed to reprogram a patient's immune system to target cancer cells from a specific tumor. The company takes tissue from a tumor following surgery, extracts proteins it says activate the immune system and then injects the enriched proteins back into the body through the skin. Unlike a vaccine such as Merck & Co's Gardasil, which is designed to ward off a virus that is believed to cause some 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, Oncophage is designed to target the cancer directly and delay or prevent it from spreading once it has developed. There are about 16,000 new cases of kidney cancer a year in Russia, according to Armen, of which about a quarter fit the profile of patients most likely to benefit from Oncophage a market theoretically worth about $200 million to Antigenics. The Russian pharmaceuticals market is one of the fastest growing in the world. It will grow by nearly 60 percent to $19.4 billion in 2009 from about $12.3 billion in 2006, the research group DSM estimates. Armen said he expects the initial sales growth for Oncophage to be "modest." "We would have to price this probably at the low- to mid-range of other new-generation cancer drugs," Armen said. Such drugs can cost as much as $60,000 per patient per year, he said. "How much of that market we achieve depends on how well we iron out reimbursement issues and how effectively we can reach every single patient," Armen said. Shares of Antigenics were up 62 cents or 25 percent to $3.09 in late afternoon trading on Nasdaq after touching $3.90 earlier in the day, an increase of about 58 percent.
Example Output:
Antigenics wins Russian approval of cancer vaccine.