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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party," Carter said Tuesday during his annual report at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, where he offered caution about the political consequences should Democrats "move to a very liberal program, like universal health care." That's delicate and, Carter admitted, even contradictory advice coming from the 93-year-old former president, and it underscores the complicated political calculations for Democrats as they prepare for the November midterms and look ahead to the 2020 presidential election. "Rosie and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the past," Carter noted. He was referring to his wife, Rosalynn, and their support for the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a democratic socialist, over establishment favorite Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. At another point, he pointed to California's environmental policies limits on carbon emissions, stiffer fuel-efficiency standards as the model for combating climate change. Still, Carter stressed, Democrats nationally must "appeal to independents" who are souring on the current administration. Trump's job approval rating, according to Gallup, has dipped to 40 percent, mostly because of declining support among independents. Carter alluded to arguments from self-identified progressives that Democrats will sacrifice votes on the left if they don't embrace the liberal base: "I don't think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee," and he insisted that he's not asking the left to sacrifice its goals, only to see that winning elections is necessary to accomplish any of them. There is some historical irony in Carter's analysis. He came to the White House in 1976 from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and he clashed with party liberals, drawing a spirited primary challenge in 1980 from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter prevailed, but he was wounded, abandoned by Kennedy's most liberal supporters and unable to win over independents who helped deliver a landslide for Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter's latest handicapping comes near the conclusion of a midterm primary season that has seen Democratic primary voters move the party to the left. In some states and districts, that means nominating full-throated advocates of single-payer health care, a $15 minimum wage and abolishing or at least overhauling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In other races, it means nominees who back more cautious moves to the left, such as background checks before certain gun purchases, a "public option" health insurance plan to compete alongside private insurance policies, step raises for the minimum wage and an immigration overhaul that offers legal status to some immigrants in the country illegally. Carter did not delve into those distinctions, instead offering a sweeping condemnation of his latest successor to remind Democrats of the stakes. He denounced the administration's latest environmental policy proposal to make it easier for energy companies to release methane gas that contributes to climate change. He singled out Trump's policy of separating immigrant families at the border, including those seeking asylum. "America is inherently committed to human rights, and I think in the future we will let that prevail," Carter said, "but for the next two years, I can't predict the imprisoned children are going to be any better off unfortunately." Carter has previously criticized Trump for his repeated falsehoods, and he's chided Trump for his hardline support for Israel over Palestinians. Yet Carter has found common ground with Trump on other foreign policy fronts, and did so again Tuesday. While avoiding any mention of the special counsel's investigation into whether Trump's presidential campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election, Carter said he has engaged for years with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the ongoing Syrian civil war. "I have his email address," Carter said, adding that he and Putin share the same Russian river as their favorite spot for salmon fishing. That friendship, Carter said, means when Russia and other nations hold multilateral talks about the Syrian conflict, "Quite often they invite the Carter Center. ... They do not invite the U.S. government." Carter also praised Trump for meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Carter repeated his frustrations with the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, for not engaging more directly with the insular Asian nation. Carter said he's not sure Trump has made real progress yet with North Korea, but he endorsed calls for the U.S. to formally declare an end to the Korean War and normalize relations with Pyongyang. "Let them be part of the community of nations," he said. "I think that would be enough in itself to bring an end to the nuclear program in North Korea." ___ Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP Claim: Jimmy Carter: To beat Trump, Dems cannot scare off moderates.

Answer: Former President Jimmy Carter sees little hope for the U.S. to change its human rights and environmental policies as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but he has a warning for his fellow Democrats looking to oust the current administration: Don't go too far to the left.

Question: Paragraph: The story does not give any estimate of the cost of Doppler ultrasound examinations. The story clearly states the reduction in fetal death rates the review authors calculated by combining the results of the studies ithey looked at. It reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did). This reporting of absolute (as opposed to relative) risk reduction is a strong point of the story since it conveys to readers that while the intervention did improve outcomes, the underlying risk is small. We only wish, however, that the story had cited the Number Needed to Test that was included in the study 203 would need to be tested in order to find one case of fetal distress that would otherwise not have been seen using other routine exams. The story notes that there has been concern that the use of Doppler ultrasound might increase unnecessary interventions, including cesarean section deliveries in cases where it is not actually needed. It says the studies indicated that Doppler ultrasound appeared to lead to better decisions about cesarean sections and inductions of labor. The story explains that this report is a review of other studies. It also points out some shortcomings in the underlying studies. The story also includes a comment from one of the study authors that since the technique is established in current practice it is unlikely that there will be future studies of the use of the technology in high-risk pregnancies. The story clearly states that the evidence on the use of Doppler ultrasound applies only to high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence the examinations should be done in low-risk pregnancies. There is no information in the story that appears to come from an independent source. Comments from experts in the field would have helped put the authors' comments into perspective. The story says other types of testing, including electronic fetal-heart monitoring, may also be done during high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler is an established technique used to monitor high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler ultrasound is an established technology and that most of the studies reviewed were done in the 1990s. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It says the lead researcher was interviewed. Claim: Ultrasound may cut deaths in high-risk pregnancies

Answer: This story clearly explains that a new review of the available evidence from published trials backs the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor high-risk pregnancies. Notably, the story reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did), rather than trumpeting a large reduction in relative risk. By including the absolute risk numbers, the story helps readers understand both that the test appears to reduce the death rate and, importantly, that the overall risk of fetal or newborn death in developed nations is very small, thus putting the results in perspective. This story also pointed out that there is some uncertainty about the findings because of concerns about the quality of the underlying studies including in the review. What's more, it highlights the point that the studies included only women who had high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence to suggest the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor low-risk pregnancies. The story would have been ranked as satisfactory on all criteria if it had reported the typical cost of Doppler ultrasound monitoring and included an independent source in addition to the lead author of the review. When there is concern about potential problems with a pregnancy, Doppler ultrasound is a commonly recommended test used to help make decisions about cesarean section, induced labor or other interventions; thus misuse of the test could lead to inappropriate interventions.

Question: Paragraph: The overdose death rate remained unchanged during 2016 at 24.8 deaths per 1,000 residents, considering slight statewide population growth, the state Department of Health announced Wednesday. The rate of unintentional fatal drug overdoses those not linked to suicides showed a slight increase. Nearly three in four overdose deaths statewide involved opioids of some kind, including prescription pain medication and heroin. State Epidemiologist Michael Landen said the plateau in the fatal overdose rate is unsatisfactory but runs counter to a worsening national trend. "This is much more favorable than having continued substantial increases in rates, which is what we're seeing from around the country," Landen said. "But that's not satisfactory. We want our rates to drop and continue dropping." Overdose deaths in New Mexico have hovered well above the national average, even as the state has implemented pioneering policies to rein in fatalities. The state was the first in 2001 to increase access to the overdose-reversal drug naloxone, and a few years later, it led the way in releasing people from legal liability when they assist in overdose situations. This year, New Mexico became the first U.S. state to require all local and state law enforcement agencies to provide officers with antidote kits in an effort to curb deaths from opioid overdoses. State health officials are holding out hope that documented decreases in opioid prescriptions in early 2017 will help limit addiction and overdose deaths. New Mexico strengthened its prescription monitoring program in response to a surge in its drug overdose death rate in 2014, when the state ranked second only to West Virginia. In 2015, seven states had higher overdoes death rates. Full state-by-state comparisons for 2016 won't be released until later in the year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Department Secretary Lynn Gallagher cited a decrease in early 2017 in the amount of prescribed opioids and fewer dangerous overlapping prescriptions for individual patients as encouraging developments, while lamenting the continued loss of life from overdoses. "There's a lot more work to be done," she said in a statement. Unintentional overdose deaths in New Mexico increased to 428 in 2016 from 410 in 2015. Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death from injury in New Mexico and nationally, exceeding traffic related deaths. Emily Kaltenbach, state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, said stubbornly high fatalities should prompt new questions about state spending and tactics. Landen said recently approved funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is helping New Mexico study the effectiveness of efforts to stem overdose deaths "to tease out what policy interventions are more effective and which ones may be less useful." Republican New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez counts drug overdose prevention as a major priority, including efforts to increase access to medications such as buprenorphine and methadone used to wean addicts off opioid pills or heroin. At the same time, a federal review is underway into the level of access that New Mexico residents have to behavior health services, which include drug-dependency treatment, under Medicaid. The state's behavior health system was upended in 2013 when Martinez's administration froze payments to more than a dozen nonprofits based on concerns about possible fraud. An investigation by the New Mexico Attorney General's Office eventually found only regulatory violations and no patterns of fraud. Claim: Drug overdose deaths up slightly in New Mexico.

Answer:
The number of drug overdose deaths increased to 497 in 2016 from 493 the previous year in New Mexico, a state that has led the western United States in drug fatalities as it wrestles with opioid and heroin addiction.