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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Half of EU states have designated long lists of drugs that cannot be exported during the coronavirus emergency. The lists include medication used to treat COVID-19 patients such as muscle relaxants, painkillers and hydroxychloroquine. "We ask that national governments lift any export ban on medicines. Such restrictions can lead to shortages elsewhere in the EU," von der Leyen said in a statement. She also called on governments to avoid stockpiling. Bans are usually justified with the need to fulfil national needs, but Europe has so far faced only limited supply problems from the coronavirus crisis. Temporary shortages have been recorded mostly for drugs used to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients, such as anaesthetics, antibiotics and muscle relaxants that allow people to receive breathing support from ventilators. But national lists comprise many more drugs, including some that have wider uses such as the painkiller paracetamol and insulin, used by diabetics. The European Commission on Wednesday adopted new guidance on drugs supplies, which calls on governments to refrain from export bans and from requisitioning medicines. "Whilst it is understandable that countries wish to ensure the availability of essential medicines nationally, export bans are detrimental to the availability of medicines for European patients even when they are legally justifiable," the non-binding document says. France, Poland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are among the EU countries with the longest lists of drugs which are temporarily banned from export. The bans apply mostly to distributors, which cover a large part of the EU market and provide the biggest share of supplies to pharmacies. The new guidelines also called on states to stop excessive stockpiling, which the Commission said could contribute to supply shortages. It warned the worst effects on supplies from stockpiling emerge when countries compete among themselves. The Commission is setting up an EU reserve of critical medicines and medical gear to address future needs. Claim: EU urges states to lift drug export bans to prevent shortages.
Example Output: The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Wednesday urged European Union states to lift export bans on medicines to avoid causing shortages in the bloc as it tackles the coronavirus crisis.

Example Input: Paragraph: The jury in a Philadelphia court awarded the $8 billion to a man who previously won $680,000 over his claims that it failed to warn that young men using Risperdal could grow breasts. J&J called the sum "grossly disproportionate with the initial compensatory award" and said it was confident it would be overturned. Legal experts agreed that the penalty was likely to be slashed. But the verdict, which helped drive J&J's shares down 2% on Wednesday, is an example of how public outrage at the pharmaceutical industry for high drug prices has contributed to harsher verdicts against drugmakers accused of wrongdoing in recent years, legal experts said. Outsized penalties awarded by some juries highlight risks in a longstanding strategy by drugmakers such as J&J of taking their chances at trial rather then settle product liability lawsuits brought by patients. "Every pharmaceutical company needs to seriously consider if they want to litigate to verdict in the present environment, but with the settlement demands so incredibly high it's not always clear what their alternative is," said Barry Thompson, a partner at Baker McKenzie law firm who was not involved in the case. Drugmakers often prefer to litigate rather than settle in hopes of protecting their brands and discouraging future patient lawsuits, Thompson said. Companies also may use a series of early trial verdicts to gauge the size of any settlement it might eventually offer, as Merck & Co (MRK.N) did with its withdrawn Vioxx arthritis pain drug when facing thousands of lawsuits by patients who claimed harm from the drug. A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision suggests that the upper limit of a fair punitive penalty in the Risperdal case would be about $6 million based on the earlier compensatory award. J&J could still get a favorable ruling on appeal that would give the company leverage in dealing with the remaining cases, said Benjamin McMichael, a professor at the Alabama School of Law who has researched punitive damage awards. "With such a large punitive damages award at issue, appellate courts may be more willing to come down hard on the plaintiffs," McMichael said. J&J faces more than 13,000 lawsuits tied to Risperdal alleging that it caused a condition called gynecomastia in boys, in which breast tissue becomes enlarged. The company is also facing lawsuits involving its baby powder, opioids, medical devices and other products. "We're operating within a very litigious environment, and we must at times be willing to go to trial when the science, facts and law are on our side," J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz said in an email. "We also have to remain open to resolving cases through settlement when and where that's appropriate to do. We have a proven track record of being able to successfully and appropriately manage this balance," Knewitz added. The company has had its share of legal wins, losses and settlements. An Oklahoma judge in August ordered J&J to pay $572.1 million to that state for its part in fueling the opioid crisis by deceptively marketing addictive painkillers, although the sum was substantially less than investors had expected. Johnson & Johnson has said it plans to appeal the ruling. Earlier this month, the company agreed to pay $20.4 million to settle claims by two Ohio counties, avoiding a federal opioid trial. In 2013, J&J paid more than $2.2 billion to resolve civil and criminal investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice into its marketing of Risperdal and other drugs. Claim: Massive jury award against J&J highlights risks of its legal strategy.
Example Output: A jury award that hit Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) with $8 billion in punitive damages for a case involving its anti-psychotic drug Risperdal highlights the risks of the drugmaker's all-or-nothing legal strategy, several legal experts told Reuters on Wednesday.

Example Input: Paragraph: Social and religious conservatives praise the administration for promoting "a culture of life." But women's-rights activists and some medical experts view the multi-pronged changes as a dangerous ideological shift that could increase unintended pregnancies and abortions. "When I ran for office, I pledged to stand for life," President Donald Trump said in a recent speech to the Susan B. Anthony List, which backs political candidates who oppose abortion. "And as president, that's exactly what I've done. And I have kept my promise, and I think everybody here understands that fully." Most of the changes involve rules and regulations under the administration's direct control, such as a proposal to forbid federally funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions and separately allowing more employers who cite moral or religious reasons to opt out of no-cost birth control for women workers. Trump also is appointing numerous new federal judges endorsed by anti-abortion groups. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the president's only appointment to the Supreme Court so far, has a sparse record on abortion, but has drawn praise from anti-abortion groups and criticism from abortion rights supporters. Unlike regulatory changes, judicial appointments cannot be reversed by a future president. Democrats say Trump is changing policy in ways that could disrupt access to family planning for some women. A recently proposed rule would make major changes to Title X, the family-planning program, including banning clinics from sharing physical space and financial resources with abortion providers. Providers like Planned Parenthood could be forced out. "It's across the spectrum of women's health services," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Col. "They're proposing abstinence-only sex education which study after study has shown doesn't work restrictions to family planning, and more and more restrictions to abortion." Title X serves about 4 million low-income people, mainly women. Disruptions could affect women's access to long-acting contraceptives, such as implants and IUDs. Those are more effective than daily pills that can be forgotten but also much more expensive up-front. Eight professional groups representing doctors, nurses, midwives and physician assistants say the administration's Title X proposal "dangerously intrudes" on the patient-provider relationship. "The strange thing about this is that people who want to decrease the number of abortions are taking away access to the very services that help prevent them," said Dr. Hal Lawrence, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, one of the eight groups. Among the others are the American College of Nurse-Midwives and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Speaking at a recent rally organized by women's health advocates in Phoenix, Karina Romero recalled how she had no health insurance and about $20 in her bank account when she sought birth control at a Planned Parenthood clinic in the city's suburbs. The federal program enabled her to get a long-lasting contraceptive implant. "They have allowed me to pursue a higher education without having to worry about how I'm going to pay for my birth control, or how I'm going to pay for just a regular check up every year," said Romero, who studies online at Northern Arizona University. The administration says it supports family planning and isn't cutting funding merely drawing a "bright line" between birth control and abortion. Officials say the doctor-patient relationship is protected because if a woman asks for an abortion referral, Title X doctors could offer a list of pregnancy services providers, including some who perform abortions. Abortion is legal, but under longstanding law and regulations, taxpayer money cannot be used to pay for abortions. Planned Parenthood, a major provider of both kinds of services, can receive federal family-planning grants while separately providing abortions. Trump's changes come at a time when U.S. rates of births overall, births to teens, and abortions are low. "If we were seeing skyrocketing abortion rates and wildly high numbers on teen births, you could say we have a crisis, but this is just the opposite," said Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services under President Barack Obama, and a supporter of abortion rights. "This is playing politics and putting people in a very precarious situation." In addition to the proposed changes to Title X, other regulatory actions include: Proposing a shift in the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program to emphasize an abstinence-only approach. Proposing new criteria for federal family-planning grants that would favor applicants who promote "natural family planning" and abstinence. Expanding a ban on U.S. funding to foreign organizations that promote or provide abortions. Professor Michael New, who teaches economics at Ave Maria University in Florida, agrees there's a major policy shift. But New, who opposes abortion, dismisses claims of dire consequences as "false and frankly absurd." "President Trump is decidedly pro-life and it is his administration's prerogative to use federal funding rules to incrementally build a culture of life," said New. "The administration is seeking to redirect tax dollars away from entities like Planned Parenthood that treat abortion as a method of family planning and toward entities that affirm life and provide more holistic health care services." Planned Parenthood, which survived attempts by congressional Republicans to deny it funding, says the administration's proposed changes to Title X could be another way of achieving the same goal. Planned Parenthood serves 41 percent of program clients, and operates 13 percent of the clinics. Such facilities have become a specialized niche. Research from Texas after that state moved to oust Planned Parenthood showed that other local providers like community health centers were not able to easily fill the gap. Dr. Stephanie Ho works for Planned Parenthood at a clinic in Arkansas that will have to stop offering medication abortions because of a state law that the Supreme Court this week allowed to take effect. The combination of state restrictions and administration actions worries her. "They're pushing their views on everyone," she said. "They're ignoring scientific evidence and expert medical opinion." Top Planned Parenthood officials say they will fight to remain in Title X, and will consider litigation if necessary to challenge new rules. HHS is expected to announce funding awards for the $260-million program this fall. At a time when social mores on human reproduction continue changing across the world, some see the U.S. in a time warp. "A lot of social conservative activists are still fighting the battles from the '60s and the sexual revolution," said Adam Sonfield, policy manager at The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. "That's their ultimate goal that some people will just give up and stop having sex." But Kristi Hamrick, spokeswoman for Students for Life of America, said one result of the policy changes "may be that American women will find that life goes on without Planned Parenthood." ___ Crary reported from New York. Melissa Daniels in Phoenix also contributed to this story. Claim: Trump remaking federal policy on women's reproductive health.
Example Output:
Step by methodical step, the Trump administration is remaking government policy on reproductive health moving to limit access to birth control and abortion and bolstering abstinence-only sex education.