Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called "double jeopardy clause" of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and NeilM. Gorsuch dissented. On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gamble's lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on "double jeopardy," which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitution's double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or "separate sovereigns") which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) This "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gamble's filing. The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been "long held", and "consistently endorsed" by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of "[p]recedent, experience, and reason alike," The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as "not a new question," having been "invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" Each sovereign is entitled to "exercis[e] its own sovereignty" to "determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity" and prosecute the offender "without interference by the other." Under petitioner's interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereign's efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereign's similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitution's bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: "Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause." The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. "Under the dual sovereignty doctrine," Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, "as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the 'same offense.'" The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the President's pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedy's retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the president's legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this case's having importance with regard to President Trump's pardon power: Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump's power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn't be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed then Trump's pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, "the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally but with some existing limits can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon," explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that "the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states' core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context." Claim: Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, could be a deciding vote on a case that has the potential to dramatically increase the power of the presidential pardon.
Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case.

Paragraph: Late Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $70.1 million to Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California, who was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer in 2012. Giannecchini, then 59, said she had used Johnson's Baby Powder for more than 40 years to keep her genital area dry, as many women do. She blamed it for her cancer and accused J&J of negligence. Two other jury trials in St. Louis reached similar outcomes earlier this year, awarding the plaintiffs $72 million and $55 million. But in J&J's home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn't reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease. Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don't seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 0.3 percent Friday, about the same as the broader stock market, to close at $115.33. The next trial is set to start in January, also in St. Louis. Here's what experts say about talc and cancer. WHAT IS TALC? Talc is a mineral that is mined from deposits around the world, including the U.S. The softest of minerals, it's crushed into a white powder. It's been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder was launched. But it's mainly used in a variety of other products, including paint and plastics. DOES IT CAUSE OVARIAN CANCER? Like many questions in science, there's no definitive answer. Finding the cause of cancer is difficult. It would be unethical to do the best kind of study, asking a group of women to use talcum powder on their genitals and wait to see if it causes cancer, while comparing them to a group who didn't use it. While ovarian cancer is often fatal, it's relatively rare. It accounts for only about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the United States this year. Factors that are known to increase a women's risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS The biggest studies have found no link between talcum powder applied to the genitals and ovarian cancer. But about two dozen smaller studies over three decades have mostly found a modest connection a 20 percent to 40 percent increased risk among talc users. However, that doesn't mean talc causes cancer. Several factors make that unlikely, and there's no proof talc, which doesn't interact with chemicals or cells, can travel up the reproductive tract, enter the ovaries and then trigger cancer. One large study published in June that followed 51,000 sisters of breast cancer patients found genital talc users had a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, 27 percent lower than in nonusers. An analysis of two huge, long-running U.S. studies, the Women's Health Initiative and the Nurses' Health Study, showed no increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. WHAT EXPERTS SAY If there were a true link, Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III says large studies that tracked women's health for years would have verified results of the smaller ones. "Lord knows, with the amount of powder that's been applied to babies' bottoms, we would've seen something," if talc caused cancer, said Lawrence, vice president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The National Cancer Institute's Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen says the federal agency's position is that there's not a clear connection. "It is very hard to establish causal relationships," he said, adding, "A lot of ovarian cancers occur in women who have never used talc, and many women have used talc and not gotten ovarian cancer." Research director Elizabeth Ward of the American Cancer Society says it is unusual to have so much discrepancy between studies. "The risk for any individual woman, if there is one, is probably very small," Ward said. ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson on Twitter at https://twitter.com/lindaj_onpharma . Claim: Does baby powder cause cancer? Another jury says yes.
For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.

Paragraph: A locally made generic version of Efavirenz, one of 17 drugs in the cocktail used by HIV patients, should be approved and ready for use in Brazil's widely acclaimed AIDS treatment program by early next year, the Health Ministry said. "It's a historical mark for Brazil's pharmaceutical industry and Brazil's public health," Health Minister Jose Temporao said at a news conference in Brasilia, the capital. "This could be the basis for future innovative initiatives by (Brazil) in this field." Brazil, which provides free treatment to all AIDS patients, declared Efavirenz in the public interest in 2007. That allowed it to invoke a clause in World Trade Organization rules and sidestep a patent held by U.S. pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co Inc. Since then, Brazil has been importing a generic version of the drug made in India, helping it cut costs significantly. Efavirenz now accounts for 4 percent of the Health Ministry's AIDS drug budget, down from 11 percent in 2006. The cost of the Brazilian generic still has not been determined but Temporao said it would be well below Merck's price and close to what the ministry pays for Indian generics. About 80,000 of the 200,000 Brazilian HIV patients take Efavirenz as part of their treatment. Brazil has a long history of butting heads with foreign pharmaceutical giants, often threatening to break patents if they refuse to lower prices on AIDS drugs. Earlier this month, Brazil rejected a patent request for another AIDS drug made by U.S.-based Gilead Sciences Inc, citing public health concerns. "What we want is that Brazil is treated and seen in a strategic way by the industry," Temporao said. After climbing in the 1990s, Brazil's HIV infection rate has steadied at around 0.5 percent and the number of new cases and deaths have been declining. Experts attribute the success to the government's promotion of condoms, free treatment, and the use of generic drugs. Claim: Brazil to make generic version of key AIDS drug.
Brazil said on Wednesday it will start producing a generic version of a key AIDS drug, the latest step in the country's long-running battle with pharmaceutical giants to bring down the cost of treatment for HIV patients.