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.

[Q]: The committee sent letters to Juul Labs Inc, 35% owned by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc, Fontem Ventures, Japan Tobacco Inc, and Reynolds American Inc, a unit of British American Tobacco Plc. The letter to Juul asked if the company has conducted or financed studies on the health implications of using its products and the effectiveness of Juul in helping users quit smoking. It asked if Juul has sent information to the Food and Drug Administration. Kaelan Hollon, a spokeswoman for Reynolds American, said the company is reviewing the letter and believes "minors should never use tobacco products, including vapor products." Japan Tobacco said in a statement it welcomes any opportunity to "set out the responsible approaches" it takes in its marketing. Juul and Fontem Ventures did not respond to requests for comment. The probe comes amid growing scrutiny of the e-cigarette industry by lawmakers. A separate House panel in July released internal Juul emails that committee staff described as attempts to "enter schools and convey its messaging directly to teenage children." James Monsees, Juul's co-founder and chief product officer, told the panel the company's target audience is adult cigarette smokers. Representative Frank Pallone, the Democratic chair of the committee, cited vaping-related lung illnesses recently reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He requested answers and documents by Sept. 20. The CDC said on Wednesday it is investigating 153 possible cases of severe lung illness associated with e-cigarette use in 16 states. No deaths have been reported, they said.
[A]: E-cigarette firms probed over health concerns by U.S. House panel.

[Q]: According to two studies published on Wednesday, DNA from these pre-modern humans may play a role in the appearance of hair and skin as well as the risk of certain diseases. Although Neanderthals became extinct 28,000 years ago in Europe, as much as one-fifth of their DNA has survived in human genomes due to interbreeding tens of thousands of years ago, one of the studies found, although any one individual has only about 2 percent of caveman DNA. "The 2 percent of your Neanderthal DNA might be different than my 2 percent of Neanderthal DNA, and it's found at different places in the genome," said geneticist Joshua Akey, who led one of the studies. Put it all together in a study of hundreds of people, and "you can recover a substantial proportion of the Neanderthal genome." Both studies confirmed earlier findings that the genomes of east Asians harbor more Neanderthal DNA than those of Europeans. This could be 21 percent more, according to an analysis by Akey and Benjamin Vernot, published online in the journal Science. Still, "more" is a relative term. According to the paper by geneticists at Harvard Medical School, published in Nature, about 1.4 percent of the genomes of Han Chinese in Beijing and south China, as well as Japanese in Tokyo come from Neanderthals, compared to 1.1 percent of the genomes of Europeans. Anthropologists expressed caution about the findings. Fewer than half a dozen Neanderthal fossils have yielded genetic material, said Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis, one of the world's leading experts on early humans. Using this small sample to infer how much Neanderthal DNA persists in today's genome is therefore questionable, he said. As expected, since Neanderthals never existed in Africa, Africans and those who trace their ancestry to that continent have almost no Neanderthal DNA, the Harvard team found. Human ancestors began migrating out of humanity's natal continent as early as 1 million years ago, paleoanthropologists infer from fossil evidence, and between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago evolved into the robust, large-browed Homo neanderthalensis in Western Europe. Ever since scientists extracted DNA from the remains of Neanderthals, they have known that people today carry snippets of cavemen genes, in the amounts of 2 percent to 3 percent. That clinched the case that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, probably 40,000 to 80,000 years ago, soon after the latter arrived in Europe from Africa. The new studies add details about how much DNA and of what kind we inherited. "The story of early human evolution is captivating in itself, yet it also has far-reaching implications for understanding the organization of the modern human genome," Irene Eckstrand of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research, said in a statement. "Every piece of this story that we uncover tells us more about our ancestors' genetic contributions to modern human health and disease." The Harvard team used a novel genetic algorithm to estimate the probability that a particular genetic variant arose from Neanderthals. Basically, they started with the genome of a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal, and determined whether pieces of it also appeared in some non-Africans but not in sub-Saharan Africans. The algorithm identified remnants of Neanderthal DNA, called alleles, in genes associated with type 2 diabetes, Crohn's disease, lupus, biliary cirrhosis and smoking behavior. "But we can't tell if the Neanderthal alleles are contributing to disease," said Harvard's Sriram Sankararaman, lead author of the paper in Nature. Areas "with increased Neanderthal ancestry tend to be higher the farther away you go from genes," sitting, instead, in regions of the genome that do not actually produce the proteins, enzymes and other working molecules of the body. Neanderthal DNA does sit within some genes, however, such as those for keratin, a fibrous protein that makes skin, hair and nails tough and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation. The endurance of this Neanderthal DNA suggests that our caveman inheritance was adaptive, picked by natural selection to persist in our genome, generation after generation, because it conferred a survival advantage in individuals who carried it. The Harvard team analyzed the genomes of 1,004 people to estimate which populations got more or fewer Neanderthal DNA. Confirming a 2013 study, they found more in the genomes of east Asians than in Europeans. But they also dug deeper. Puerto Ricans and Spaniards have the least Neanderthal DNA, 1.05 percent and 1.07 percent respectively. That is curious because Neanderthals made their last stand on the Iberian peninsula, finally dying out there 28,000 years ago. Across all populations, Neanderthal DNA is conspicuously low in regions of the X chromosome and in testes-specific genes. The paucity of Neanderthal genes among those active in the testes suggests that interbreeding wasn't a resounding success: It produced viable children, but the males were infertile. Although as much as 20 percent of Neanderthal DNA persists in modern genomes, according to the Washington scientists, vast regions of the latter are Neanderthal deserts. Among them is a region of chromosome 7 that includes a gene called FOXP2. "FOXP2 has previously been implicated in speech and language and may be an example of a gene that influences a uniquely human trait, which is why we find no Neanderthal sequences in these regions," said Akey.
[A]: Modern humans more Neanderthal than once thought, studies suggest.

[Q]: Bolstered by Trump's appointment of two conservative justices, the nine-member court could soon begin to pare back abortion rights, starting with a major case from Louisiana that is one of several similar pending appeals. The addition of Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch could alter the conservative-majority court's approach to abortion. Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who backed abortion rights in key rulings in 1992 and 2016. Jennifer Popik, director of federal legislation for the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, said her group hopes Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will "interpret the Constitution more narrowly" on abortion rights. In Congress, legislation backed by Trump's fellow Republicans already has been introduced to restrict late-term abortions along the lines discussed by Trump, but there are not enough votes to pass it given Democratic opposition. Abortion is one of the most contentious issues in U.S. politics. Trump, whose abortion views have been fluid over the years, has emerged as an advocate of more restrictions, a position that appeals to his conservative voter base. His address on Tuesday night in some ways kicked off his 2020 re-election campaign. His call for new limits on late-term abortions was welcomed by anti-abortion activists. When he ran for president in 2016, Trump said he would appoint anti-abortion judges who would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade that recognized a woman's constitutional right to abortion and legalized the procedure nationwide. In his State of the Union address, Trump criticized a New York law and legislation in Virginia that would in limited circumstances allow for late-term abortions when the mother's health is endangered. "To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother's womb," Trump said during the speech, without specifying details. A White House spokeswoman said Trump backs legislation pending in Congress that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs abortion rights, called Trump's comments "smoke and mirrors." "This is really just a distraction. The goal is not to end a certain class of abortion. His goal is to end all abortions," Dalven added. There is no nationwide law setting a specific limit on when in a pregnancy abortions can be performed. Each state has its own laws, with conservative states imposing restrictions and liberal states more broadly backing abortion rights. Republicans have embraced the federal legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks. But past bills have failed to overcome Democratic opposition, even when Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. With the House now led by Democrats and the Senate by Republicans, there is even less chance of such legislation passing, though Republicans said on Wednesday they would press for a vote. As of the end of last year, 17 states had laws banning abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights. No states categorically ban all late-term abortions in all circumstances and 43 states have laws that impose at least some restrictions, it said. The Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed by the high court in 1992, concluded that abortion could not be banned before the fetus is viable, but gave states leeway to impose greater restrictions on it toward the end of a pregnancy. In 2007, the court upheld a federal restriction on "partial-birth abortions" that involve a physician removing most of the fetus intact rather than dismembering it. In its most recent major abortion ruling, the Supreme Court - with Kennedy joining the court's four liberals in the majority - in 2016 struck down regulations in Texas that abortion rights advocates said would shutter many clinics. The Louisiana case pending before the justices resembles the Texas case. It involves a requirement that doctors who perform abortions have a difficult-to-obtain arrangement called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. The provision was challenged by abortion rights advocates. If the court rejects their request, it would represent a shift away from the 2016 ruling following Kennedy's retirement. The court will also decide soon whether to hear Indiana's bid to revive a state ban on abortions performed due to the sex or race of the fetus or evidence of disability. Indiana this week asked the Supreme Court to hear another abortion case concerning a law to require fetal ultrasounds before abortions take place.
[A]:
On abortion, Trump agenda likely leads to Supreme Court, not Congress.