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:
"With abortion now a key issue in the debate over health care reform, abortion rights supporters are highlighting President Barack Obama's promise about the issue during the presidential campaign. In an alert to members on Nov. 9, 2009, Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, ""President Obama campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" We'll address that claim here. We'll also be adding it to our Obameter database of campaign promises. The group's claim is virtually identical to one made in September by House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who said in a statement that, ""during his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this 'right' would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president."" We researched Boehner's claim and concluded he was right about Obama's promise. To explore Obama's promise on abortion coverage in his health care plan, you need to go back to a July 17, 2007, speech he gave to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In that speech, he discussed his commitment to how ""reproductive care"" -- a term a campaign aide said included abortion coverage -- would fit into his health care reform plan. Obama said, ""In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we're doing is, we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we're putting more money into preventive care."" The words Obama used in that speech mirror those in the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's recent alert even more closely than they did Boehner's formulation. So it's certainly correct, as the group says, that Obama ""campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" It's worth nothing that since he spoke to that group -- an important constituency for someone seeking the Democratic nomination -- he has chosen his words carefully. Of all the words Obama has spoken and written about health care reform since 2007 -- a voluminous amount, to be sure -- the terms ""abortion"" and ""reproductive health"" haven't popped up very often. Indeed, on several of the rare occasions in which Obama or his staff have broached the subject, it's been to assure Americans that his health care proposal would not promote abortions. For instance, in his prime-time address to Congress on Sept. 9, 2009, Obama's only mention of abortion -- which came immediately after he was interrupted by the heckling Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. -- was that ""one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."" That's a reflection of the sensitivity surrounding the issue. Obama's promise to the abortion rights group during the primary campaign could now be a liability before a broader audience that includes many people opposed to abortion rights. Still, Planned Parenthood is correct that Obama campaigned on a promise that he would put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" After all, he was speaking to . . . Planned Parenthood. So we find the group's claim to be ."
answer:
President Obama campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan.

question:
On September 27 2020, a number of Facebook posts claiming that Amy Coney Barrett had been a judge for "2 years 10 months [and] 23 days" began circulating:All three of the posts above read:2 years, 10 months, 23 days.The length of time Amy Coney Barrett has been a judge.Occasionally, a person sharing the post added to the text:All of the examples we found utilized Facebook's text-based status update image generator, creating a colorful and highly shareable post without the ability to easily add a citation. Commenters frequently opined that Amy Coney Barrett's time on the bench was insufficient, but none appeared to be verifying the accuracy of the viral posts.BackgroundAt 7:28 PM EST on September 18 2020, NPR reported that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died of metastatic pancreatic cancer; the Supreme Court issued a press release:Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died this evening [of September 18 2020] surrounded by her family at her home in Washington, D.C., due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer. She was 87 years old. Justice Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993. She was the second woman appointed to the Court and served more than 27 years.At 8:15 PM EST on September 18 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was named in articles about who might be Ginsburg's possible replacement on the bench:The line to succeed the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court likely starts with these federal appeals court judges:Amy Coney BarrettA finalist for Trump's second high court nomination, which ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett, 48, is a favorite of religious conservatives.Barrett rocketed to the top of Trump's list of potential nominees after her 2017 confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, when Democrats cited her deep Catholic faith not as an advantage but an obstacle. She was confirmed, 55-43.By September 19 2020, Coney Barrett was described as a front-runner in ongoing coverage of Ginsburg's death. Politico reported:President Donald Trump is expected to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, setting in motion a likely sharp shift toward a more conservative court.If confirmed, Barrett would take the seat vacated after the death of the liberal-leaning Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Trump indicatedthat he intended to nominate Barrett on September 19 2020:Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appellate judge and Notre Dame law professor, is a proven conservative with a compelling personal story who has long been atop President Donald Trump's Supreme Court short list.Trump announced Saturday [September 19 2020] he is nominating Barrett to be the new high court justice during a ceremony at the White House Rose Garden. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on Barrett's nomination on October 12 [2020].Barrett, the mother of seven children and a former law clerk to the late right-wing beacon Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett, now 48, was a finalist for the Supreme Court spot that went to Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.She met with Trump to discuss the nomination on Monday [September 21 2020], sources close to the process told CNN.Amy Coney Barrett's Resume and Time on the BenchOn September 21 2020, SCOTUSBlog.com profiled Amy Coney Barrett's career, detailingher "prolific" academic career and adding:Barrett spent a year as a law and economics fellow at George Washington University before heading to her alma mater, Notre Dame, in 2002 to teach federal courts, constitutional law and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a professor of law at the school in 2010; four years later, she became the Diane and M.O. Research Chair of Law. Barrett was named "distinguished professor of the year" three times. []During her 15 years as a full-time law professor, Barrett's academic scholarship was prolific. Several of her articles, however, drew fire at Barrett's confirmation hearing, with Democratic senators suggesting that they indicate that Barrett would be influenced by her Catholic faith, particularly on the question of abortion.On the University of Notre Dame's website, a biography pagedescribed Barrett's career in academia further. A subsequent section on SCOTUSBlog.com read in part:Trump nominated Barrett to the 7th Circuit on May 8, 2017. Despite some criticism from Democrats, she garnered bipartisan support at her confirmation hearing On Oct. 31, 2017, Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit by a vote of 55 to 43.On September 26 2020, the White House published a briefing("Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Exceptional Legal Experience, Expertise, and Judicial Record Make Her the Right Choice to Serve on the Supreme Court") and addressed Barrett's qualifications. That section noted she had served as a judge since 2017:EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:Judge Amy Coney Barrett brings a wealth of experience from her time in private practice, academia, and public service.As noted, Amy Coney Barrett received her commission on November 2 2017:Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitNominated by Donald J. Trump on May 8, 2017, to a seat vacated by John Daniel Tinder. Confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017, and received commission on November 2, 2017.2 Years, 10 Months, and 23 DaysThe "2 Years, 10 Months, and 23 Days" posts appeared around September 27 2020, but they were later shared in screenshots on later dates.Two years, ten months, and 23 days after November 2 2017 was either September 25 or 26 2020, according to a "time between dates" calculator.TL;DRSeveral Facebook posts (and tweets) simply read "2 years, 10 months, 23 days, the length of time Amy Coney Barrett has been a judge"; we found no variation of the claim that included a citation. Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on October 31 2017, and received commission on November 2 2017. Although the calculation was oddly specific and therefore slightly inaccurate, Barrett took the bench roughly two years, ten months, and 23 days before the posts began circulating.Comments
answer:
2 years, 10 months, 23 days. The length of time Amy Coney Barrett has been a judge.

question:
"During his widely watched monologue about his newborn son's recent medical emergency, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel offered a bit of praise for one group of Americans that doesn't receive much love these days: members of Congress. ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Is that what happened? Basically, yes. Kimmel has a point that by approving the increase, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress rebuked Trump's proposal and made clear a distaste for cutting NIH. Budget experts, however, may quibble that Kimmel oversimplified a bit on the numbers. First, some background. NIH conducts and disseminates research into the causes, diagnosis, preventionand cure of human diseases. It is a collection of 27 separate institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Explaining Kimmel's comment starts with the release earlier this year of the Trump White House's budget blueprint. While this proposal did not offer significant detail, it did include a cut for NIH. Specifically, the proposal would reduce spending for fiscal year 2018 by $5.8 billion compared to the fiscal 2017 level, through a range of reorganizations, consolidations and other changes. That's short of a $6 billion cut, as Kimmel described it, but it's pretty close. Fast-forward a few weeks to congressional negotiations over a bill to keep the government funded and avoid a government shutdown. Under the agreement reached by lawmakers, NIH would see a $2 billion increase in its budget over the five-month period of extended federal spending. (That's on top of the funding that was already expected.) According to news reports, the agreement provides an additional $400 million for Alzheimer's disease and an additional $476 million for the National Cancer Institute, $120 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative, and an additional $110 million for the BRAIN Initiative, which aims to map the human brain. Where Kimmel oversimplified matters is on the numbers. Specifically, the $2 billion increase did not directly replace Trump's $5.8 billion proposed cut -- the two actions are distinct, since they targeted two different fiscal years. It would have been more accurate to say that the $2 billion increase directly rejected a separate Trump proposal to cut $1.2 billion from NIH for the remainder of fiscal 2017, which concludes at the end of September. (Remember, the $5.8 billion cut was to be for the 2018 fiscal year, not for the rest of 2017.) Indeed, the Trump proposal to cut NIH by $5.8 billion in 2018 is still officially on the table since Congress hasn't yet acted on spending for 2018. The agreement Kimmel cited only addresses a five-month extension of federal spending. That said, Kimmel's overarching point -- that Congress effectively rejected Trump's proposal to cut NIH -- is on target, experts say. Steve Ellis, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed that while Kimmel oversimplified the numbers, he added that the talk show host's ""overall message is accurate. The administration sought cuts and Congress boosted the funding."" And the decision to protect NIH in the budget has been supported not just by Democrats but also by key Republicans, including the chairmen of the two chambers' health appropriations subcommittees, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., as well as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. ""There is no appetite on the Hill for cutting NIH,"" Stan Collender, a budget expert at the consulting firm Qorvis MSLGROUP, told PolitiFact. Our ruling Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn't precisely exchange the increase for Trump's proposed cut. But Kimmel's broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH's funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH's budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up."
answer:
President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion.