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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Emily's List is stoking the abortion debate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District race with a fundraising email saying Republican incumbent Mike Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" Emily's List -- a political organization that supports the election of Democratic women who support abortion rights -- has endorsed Coffman's opponent, state Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat. Its mailer focused on reproductive rights, abortion and Roe v. Wade. In the email, titled ""2016 goal: A Congress that fights for women and families,"" Emily's List said, ""We wish Congress was less like this"" -- citing Mike Coffman's co-sponsorship of the 2011 bill -- ""and more like this Morgan Carroll sponsored a bill to make emergency contraception available to sexual assault survivors."" We wanted to check the accuracy of Emily's List's characterization of Coffman's role in the legislation. Coffman did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which attempted to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape"" -- and not rape in broader terms. Critics said the ""forcible rape"" language could rule out other forms of sexual assault that are considered rape, including statutory rape, attacks where women are drugged or threatened, and date rapes. Facing a backlash from women's groups, Republicans amended the bill in committee to remove the word ""forcible"" and make the exemption for ""rape."" Coffman wasn't on this committee and didn't vote on the removal. ""The bill was amended in committee, and Congressman Coffman supported the amended bill on the floor,"" a Coffman campaign spokesman later said. Congressional records show that Coffman voted for the amended bill in a floor vote, which passed the House but not the Senate. In recent years, Coffman has tempered his position on abortion in one of the country's most competitive ""swing"" districts, which is nearly evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents. In 2012, he said, ""I am against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother."" But a year later, Coffman said that while he supported a House bill to limit late-term abortions, ""I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this legislation."" Coffman's Democratic opponent, Morgan Carroll, had blunt criticism of his co-sponsoring the 2011 bill's original ""forcible rape"" language. ""Rape is about the lack of consent -- not the degree of force -- and this definition takes us backwards,"" Carroll told Denver7. ""I unequivocally support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body, including her health care,"" she said. Coffman's spokeswoman complained that political opponents have repeatedly raised the 2011 bill and ""will twist the facts any way they can in an attempt to mischaracterize and demonize Rep. Coffman."" Our ruling Emily's List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation, we're rating this claim . Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill." Claim: "As part of legislative fights over abortion rights,""Mike Coffman co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."
[EX A]: "Emily's List said that Coffman ""co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."" The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ""forcible rape."" Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the ""forcible"" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation. Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word ""forcible"" from the bill."

[EX Q]: Paragraph: A small Swiss study released on Monday showed that walking up and down stairs for three months, without recourse to the lift, increased levels of fitness dramatically. In fact, the improvement in aerobic capacity was equivalent to a 15 percent fall in the risk of dying prematurely from any cause. Subjects also saw marked reduction in waist size, body fat, blood pressure and cholesterol all of which are known risk factors for heart disease. Philippe Meyer of the University Hospital in Geneva studied 69 employees of the university with a sedentary lifestyle, defined as less than two hours of exercise a week and fewer than 10 flights of stairs climbed a day. After not using elevators for 12 weeks, they increased their use of stairs to an average of 23 stories ascended or descended a day from five before, with a resulting sharp increase in fitness levels. "This suggests that stair climbing at work may have major public health implications," Meyer told the annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology. "However, the results of the pilot study need to be confirmed in a larger randomized controlled trial." Claim: Take the stairs for a healthy heart.
[EX A]: Using the stairs at work instead of taking elevators could be a life saver.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The drug is still in early experiments, but it would have been nice to give readers some indication of how the eventual price of this drug might compare to available antidepressants. We will give the story a satisfactory rating because it specifies that 7 of 10 patients given SAGE-547 reported significant improvement in their depression within 60 hours, which persisted for up to 30 days. However, the story did not tell readers that the depression questionnaire used in this study, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), has been criticized as placing greater emphasis on sleep than on suicidal thoughts, so that the scores of some patients may improve even if their thoughts of suicide increase. Readers should have been told that the form of the drug used in this trial is given as an IV solution and that it will not be known if a pill can produce similar results until separate trials are completed. Although the story does report that the company said the only problems reported by patients were dizziness or a sedative effect (in both the treatment and placebo groups), it should have specifically cautioned readers that there could be other potential harms that cannot be identified by a one-month test in which only 10 patients received the active drugnotably, if this drug can pass into breastmilk or affect babies in utero. Also, as noted above, the story fails to tell readers that the form of the drug used in this trial is given as an inpatient IV treatment, which carries risks. The story tells readers the study is small, has not been peer reviewed, and that the results were reported in a press release. However, it should have specifically noted that this sort of small, phase 2 trial is not designed to prove whether or not an experimental drug really is effective. The story did not disease monger. However, because milder symptoms of the "baby blues" are common in pregnant women and new mothers, the story should have been clearer about distinguishing the features of a "Major Depressive Episode" like those experienced by the women in this trial from the more common blues that readers are likely to be familiar with. Although the story notes that the results were released in a news release and a company conference call, and were not peer reviewed (thus making it clear that the source is only the company and that the results have not been independently reviewed), the story should have included comments from independent experts. This is a barely passing satisfactory as the story does briefly acknowledge alternatives. The only reference to conventional antidepressant treatment is that it doesn't work as quickly as this experimental drug appears to. Talk therapy is mentioned, but there is no mention of its effectiveness. While it is true that antidepressants can take weeks, they and mood stabilizing drugs for women with bipolar disorder do treat postpartum depression. In women with a history of this highly recurrent condition, antidepressant treatment may be started or maintainedduring pregnancy. The story makes clear that this drug is still being tested and that the company has not applied for FDA approval. The story does not mention other GABA-receptor drugs in development. Indeed, it includes a quote from the company CEO calling the study data a "paradigm shift in how the disease is thought about," thus giving the incorrect impression that this drug is the only one like it being studied. The story clearly states that the study results were put out in a company news release. The story includes a quote from a company conference call, in addition to the numbers from the news release. However, the reliance on company sources undermines the value of the story. Claim: Experimental drug shows promise for quick treatment of postpartum depression
[EX A]:
This is story about a small, early test of a new type of drug to treat postpartum depression. The story is careful to note the preliminary nature of the findings and that the only source is company statements, since the study report has not been submitted for peer-review. However, it is hard to see the health news in a tiny phase 2 study, especially when no independent sources are included in the story to help provide balance to the claims. As readers, we're also left wondering about potential harms specific to pregnant and new mothers, such as the drug's ability to affect a baby in utero or pass through breastmilk. (Editor's note: STAT has updated the story since this review was posted, and the "Read Original Story" link above will take you to the updated version, not the original version that we saw. Some of these changes address several of the Not Satisfactory ratings below. However, our ratings still stand: While updates are great, they aren't likely to be seen by peoplewho readthe original story.) This story reports some positive early hints about an experimental drug tested in a few women with the symptoms of major depression. But with phrases like "paradigm shift," readers could easily get the impression that the results are far more reliable, and relevant to many more women, than is justified based on the company announcement. And STAT was far from the only news outlet writing about the study in such a way. Itgot a lot of play in the financial press and in investor circles, helpingboost the company's stock price, with the price closing up 37%. But whether the source is STAT or a more financial-minded publication, all stories posted online have the potential to reach and influence readers who are searching for health news. That's why all such stories withhealth claims shouldscrutinizemedical evidence.