instruction:
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.
question:
Karen Sage of Austin, facing a Tuesday runoff with Mindy Montford of Austin for the Democratic nod for a judgeship, touts her experience as a prosecutor overseeing a new unit focused on defendants with mental illness. With no Republican opponent in November, the winner of the runoff will likely be a shoo-in for Travis County's 299th state District Court judgeship. In a mailer sent to voters April 3, Sage celebrates the new program, saying that jail "time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent."We wondered if Sage's statementechoed in a TV ad she debuted Wednesdayreflects reality. Sage's campaign initially referred us to Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County district attorney. Lehmberg confirmed that she asked Sage, an assistant district attorney, to helm the felony mental health unit, which was started in January 2009. Claire Dawson-Brown, the DA's director of strategic prosecutions, said a magistrate started handling a special docket comprised of "mental health" defendants in late April 2009. To be in the program, Dawson-Brown said, defendants must usually be charged with a non-violent crime. They also must be diagnosed with major depression or considered bipolar, schizo-affective or schizophrenic, and seen as unstable in the jail. "It would be someone in a crisis situation," she said, "or their mental illness is impairing their behavior." Experts team to address the needs of the mental health inmates, Dawson-Brown said. She said participants get services they need in custody and when they return to the community. Besides Sage, who has a paralegal and a secretary, each defendant has an attorney familiar with mental health issues; she said the magistrate, a jail counselor and officials serving the local mental health and adult probation systems also play roles, with social workers sometimes getting involved. And how has the program affected jail stays? Sage said she reached her 50-percent reduction statement by comparing a baseline estimate that "mental health" inmates facing felony charges were averaging 106 days in jail before the program began to the 42-day average for participants in the program at the time she left the office in mid-December to run for judge. The decrease amounts to 60 percent. Dawson-Brown agreed that as of late 2008 and early 2009, the average Travis County jail stay for all its "mental health" defendants, including violent offenders, was 106 days. We pointed out that the baseline figure sweeps in the longer jail stays of individuals charged with violent crimes who aren't automatically put in the new program, driving up the pre-program average and potentially skewing before and after comparisons. Dawson-Brown then gave us more detailed jail-stay information enabling an improved review of the change in average jail stays. Based on the new figures, we estimate that defendants who have been through the new program would have averaged 77 days in jail before the program began. The nitty gritty: We multiplied the number of affected defendants categorized by the level of felony they faced--ranging from first-degree felony charges to second- and third-degree felonies to state-jail felony charges--by the days that similarly charged defendants averaged in jail before the program began. Next, we totaled those defendant-days-in-jail and divided the total (19,432) by the number of defendants (253) to reach the pre-program estimate of an average of 77 days in jail. Through February, the magistrate had processed 253 defendants since the program's start, according to Dawson-Brown, and they averaged 36 days in jail. Best we can tell, the average jail stay for defendants dropped by 41 days, or 53 percent.
answer:
"Karen Sage Says that under a new program jail ""time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent."

question:
Since 2000, 34 of Iowa's 118 community hospitals have closed their birthing units, according to the Iowa Department of Public Health. There have been two so far this year, down from eight closures last year the most in a single year. Most of those closures have happened at smaller facilities than the 49-bed Marshalltown hospital. Iowa's aging population is a key reason for these closures, Dr. Stephen Hunter, vice chairman of obstetrics at the University of Iowa Hospital & Clinics in Iowa City, told Iowa Public Radio . "Some rural counties have lost as many as 40 percent of their population in the last three decades," Hunter said. "That's a lot of people gone, unfortunately. That leaves a system that's not adequate for those that remain in those counties." Hunter said the state is also facing a severe shortage of OB/GYNs and family practice doctors who practice obstetrics. And, he said, Medicaid reimbursements are so low for obstetrics that hospitals can't support the service. According to figures from the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Medicaid reimbursed it about one-third of what commercial insurance plans did for services such as ultrasounds and deliveries last year. Competition from bigger hospitals in bigger cities presents a business challenge, too. "There simply aren't enough women choosing to deliver locally," UnityPoint Health President Jenni Friedly said. "This is a problem that has been going on for a long time. . There are enough women becoming pregnant, but they are going elsewhere to deliver. It's clear OB/GYN patients are already selecting Ames and Des Moines for their care." Stephanie Trusty, a nurse who tracks birthing trends for the state, told the Marshalltown Times-Republican that "some of these birthing units are beautiful. They're like a four-star hotel." But does the loss of birthing units at the smaller hospitals and consolidation of birthing services affect health outcomes? A 2017 University of Minnesota study said the loss of labor and delivery units in smaller, more remote counties is linked with a decrease in prenatal care and increase in out-of-hospital and preterm births. The Iowa Public Health Department and the University of Iowa are keeping watch for any such problems, but so far have not seen any sizable incidence, Trusty said. Hansen Family Hospital CEO Doug Morse in Iowa Falls told Iowa Public Radio that hospital officials decided labor and delivery care were too expensive to continue in the aging, rural community with a declining birth rate. After three months of public meetings, Morse said, hospital officials opted to use half the money they would save to turn the unit into a mental health program for seniors. "It really did become fairly clear that people recognize that this wasn't necessarily ... delivering babies isn't necessarily a service that matches an elderly population," he said. The closing of the birth unit at the Iowa Falls hospital forced Jessica Sheridan to change her plans to have her baby born there, just five minutes from her home. She established relationships with doctors in Ames, an hour away, where her daughter was delivered in mid-December. "We were lucky. It was nice weather," Sheridan said.
answer:
Costs forcing some hospitals to stop delivering babies.

question:
"In just over 24 hours, some 12,000 people shared a post from the Kenosha County Democratic party slamming the coronavirus vote by Wisconsin's Republican congressional delegation. The emergency measure which includes free testing for COVID-19, paid emergency leave and other emergency appropriations easily passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 18, 2020. But it passed without much help from Wisconsin. The Kenosha Democrats seized on that fact in a March 19, 2020, Facebook post. The post explained the bill, commented on gerrymandering and noted the GOP no votes from purple Wisconsin went beyond the breakdown from even the deepest red of the red states. It was accompanied by a graphic with pictures of U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and U.S. Reps. Mike Gallagher, Glenn Grothman, Jim Sensenbrenner and Bryan Steil that said this: ""WI is the ONLY state where all Republicans voted against protecting its citizens."" This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Let's check it out. The bill passed 363-40 in the U.S. House and 90-8 in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, all five Republicans in the Wisconsin delegation cast a no vote, according to roll calls published by ProPublica. All four state Democrats voted for the bill. And, yes, that clean sweep of Republican votes was unique around the country. In Oklahoma both Republican senators voted against the bill, but two of three Republican representatives supported it. Iowa's lone Republican representative voted no, but both Republican senators there supported the bill. That leaves us to look at the characterization that Wisconsin Republicans ""voted against protecting (the state's) citizens""? Like anything in politics, it's more complicated than that. In various statements issued after the votes, the state's Republican lawmakers didn't object to the concept of providing help amid the pandemic, but they took issue with numerous specifics in the bill and how the process was handled. Sensenbrenner objected to spending money on a bill that he said stretched 100 pages and was presented with less than 30 minutes to review. ""We do not know the full cost of this legislation,"" he said in a statement. ""I am not a fan of passing bills to find out what is in them."" Steil told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he voted against the bill because it ""places a heavy government mandate on Wisconsin small businesses that are already suffering negative consequences from coronavirus."" Gallagher echoed those comments in a statement, saying he feared the bill would hurt small businesses. ""This bill, while well-intentioned, contains a number of unclear provisions that could force small businesses in Northeast Wisconsin to lay off workers or cause them to close their doors altogether,"" Gallagher said. ""Let me be clear: H.R. 6201 contained a number of good provisions like free testing that we've already successfully fought for. But I have serious questions as to whether the best way to support those needing paid and sick leave is through tax credits to small businesses instead of direct payments to those affected."" Lori Hawkins, chair of the Kenosha County Democratic Party, defended the description in the Facebook post. She said the bill guided both testing and treatment to help control the spread of the disease. ""A 'no' vote by our elected officials was a vote against protecting their constituents from this highly contagious disease which has already been deadly to residents in Wisconsin,"" she said in an email. A viral Facebook post said Wisconsin ""is the only state where all Republicans voted against protecting its citizens."" It is indeed the only state where all Republicans opposed the bill, which has now become law. But it's a bit of an exaggeration to summarize their decisions as a vote ""against protecting (Wisconsin) citizens."" And of course this is expected to be just the first of many bills addressing the coronavirus fallout."
answer:
"Wisconsin is the only state where all Republicans voted against protecting its citizens."