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.

[Q]: Paragraph: The story does not give any estimate of the cost of Doppler ultrasound examinations. The story clearly states the reduction in fetal death rates the review authors calculated by combining the results of the studies ithey looked at. It reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did). This reporting of absolute (as opposed to relative) risk reduction is a strong point of the story since it conveys to readers that while the intervention did improve outcomes, the underlying risk is small. We only wish, however, that the story had cited the Number Needed to Test that was included in the study 203 would need to be tested in order to find one case of fetal distress that would otherwise not have been seen using other routine exams. The story notes that there has been concern that the use of Doppler ultrasound might increase unnecessary interventions, including cesarean section deliveries in cases where it is not actually needed. It says the studies indicated that Doppler ultrasound appeared to lead to better decisions about cesarean sections and inductions of labor. The story explains that this report is a review of other studies. It also points out some shortcomings in the underlying studies. The story also includes a comment from one of the study authors that since the technique is established in current practice it is unlikely that there will be future studies of the use of the technology in high-risk pregnancies. The story clearly states that the evidence on the use of Doppler ultrasound applies only to high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence the examinations should be done in low-risk pregnancies. There is no information in the story that appears to come from an independent source. Comments from experts in the field would have helped put the authors' comments into perspective. The story says other types of testing, including electronic fetal-heart monitoring, may also be done during high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler is an established technique used to monitor high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler ultrasound is an established technology and that most of the studies reviewed were done in the 1990s. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It says the lead researcher was interviewed. Claim: Ultrasound may cut deaths in high-risk pregnancies
[A]: This story clearly explains that a new review of the available evidence from published trials backs the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor high-risk pregnancies. Notably, the story reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did), rather than trumpeting a large reduction in relative risk. By including the absolute risk numbers, the story helps readers understand both that the test appears to reduce the death rate and, importantly, that the overall risk of fetal or newborn death in developed nations is very small, thus putting the results in perspective. This story also pointed out that there is some uncertainty about the findings because of concerns about the quality of the underlying studies including in the review. What's more, it highlights the point that the studies included only women who had high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence to suggest the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor low-risk pregnancies. The story would have been ranked as satisfactory on all criteria if it had reported the typical cost of Doppler ultrasound monitoring and included an independent source in addition to the lead author of the review. When there is concern about potential problems with a pregnancy, Doppler ultrasound is a commonly recommended test used to help make decisions about cesarean section, induced labor or other interventions; thus misuse of the test could lead to inappropriate interventions.

[Q]: Paragraph: "In stark, black-and-white montages of tear-streaked female faces, District 27 state senate hopeful Kevin Rader blasts his Republican opponent in a campaign ad for her anti-abortion views. Rader, a Democrat and state House member, accuses Republican Lizbeth Benacquisto of strongly opposing abortion andhaving ties to extremist conservative groups that would criminally prosecute rape victims for having abortions. ""Lizbeth Benacquisto strongly opposes a woman's right of choice,"" the ad states. ""The extremist groups who support her would make these women into criminals. She supported an extreme law to require pregnant women to pay for and view a sonogram before they could exercise their right of choice. Her allies would make choice illegal in all cases, including rape, incest, even to save a woman's life. Vote no on Benacquisto, keep extremism out of our state Senate."" The ad enraged Benacquisto, a city councilwoman in Wellington, who responded with her own ad and therevelation that she was raped 23 years ago as a University of Florida freshman. She underscored her support for an exception to abortion for rape victims, saying she would ""never stand down when any woman has been abused,"" and demanded Rader pull the ad. Rader's camp said the only way that will happen is if Benacquisto renounces the support given to her by far-right, conservative right-to-life groups. With such a high emotion level in this campaign, we thought Rader's claim about Benacquisto's supporters was worth a look. Benacquisto is pro-life, and she makes no secret of iton her website and in questionnaires. Same with her support of the ultrasound legislation, though she has noted in various interviews she has concerns about its impact on rape victims. In a candidate questionnaire from the Christian Coalition of Florida, she added, ""I consistently support this because I am pro-life."" Benacquisto holds support from a handful of conservative, anti-abortion groups. Among those are the Christian Coalition, the Florida Right to Life PAC and the Christian Family Coalition. Though they haven't donated financially, both Florida Right to Life and the former Christian Coalition executive director have offered endorsements, and she headlined at least one event, a breakfast for the Christian Family Coalition on Oct. 16. Florida Right to Life believes life begins at conception and ends at natural death, and all points in between are to be defended. It labels abortion ""infanticide,"" which is a crime. And the Christian Coalition of Florida states, ""Although legal in the United States, we believe abortion is no less than murder of an innocent human life."" Using this logic, abortion equals murder and murder is a crime. Therefore, those who have abortions would be criminals. The Christian Family Coalition, based in Miami, says it ""works to introduce pro-family legislation at the state and local levels of government. It informs and educates citizens on where candidates stand on the issues that affect the traditional family unit."" The group's website includes a link to ""abortion,"" but contains just news articles and press releases in which it is mentioned. Each of those three organizations also closely follows abortion-related legislation. They post opinions on everything from parental notice to making the violent death of any fetus-- viable or otherwise-- cause for a first-degree murder charge. But none appear to flat-out say they would support abortion regardless of whether a woman was raped, abused by a family member or faced with death. They skirt the issue. For example, Florida Right to Life says, ""We promote, uphold and support reverence and respect for human life without regard to condition, quality, age, race, religion, color or whether born or unborn."" On the National Right to Life page, the only reference to exceptions is a 2005 survey indicating only 0.5 percent of women have abortions due to rape, while 4 percent undergo it for the mother's health. Rader's campaign manager, Michael McCall, said, ""The problem with something like that is if you take an organization like Florida Right to Life, their very core is making abortion illegal. They won't list every case in which they support banning abortions, because they support banning abortions in all cases."" It's clear that groups supporting Benacquisto have firm stands against abortion, but they're not spelled out precisely. What is clear, though, is that the groups don't offer up any exceptions. So we don't expectRader's campaign to find any." Claim: "Lizbeth Benacquisto's supporters ""would make (abortion) illegal in all cases, including rape, incest, even to save a woman's life."
[A]: "Kevin Rader says ""extremist"" supporters of his opponent would make abortion illegal in all cases"

[Q]: Paragraph: The 2014 settlement went to 10 family members, including Armstrong's two sons, sister, brother and six grandchildren, according to documents filed with the Hamilton County Probate Court in Cincinnati which were publicly available on Tuesday. Armstrong's widow, Carol, did not receive any money in the settlement. Armstrong's sons, Mark and Rick, contended care provided by Mercy Health-Fairfield Hospital cost their father his life, according to the New York Times. The 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon was celebrated Saturday. He died on Aug. 25, 2012. A Sept. 24, 2014 motion to seal the settlement said the hospital and its caregivers stood by the treatment they provided. "However, the hospital, on behalf of itself and the health care providers, agreed to a confidential settlement of $6 million to avoid the publicity the Estate might have initiated on behalf of certain members of the family if settlement had not been reached," the document said. Hospital spokeswoman Maureen Richmond declined to offer specifics on the matter, saying she was unable to discuss any individual's care. In an email statement to The Associated Press, she added: "The public nature of these details is very disappointing both for our ministry and the patient's family who had wished to keep this legal matter private." Messages were left for Armstrong's widow and sons, and for Wendy Armstrong, Mark's sister and a lawyer involved in motions to seal the settlement. Carol Armstrong told the New York Times she signed off on the settlement in her role as executor but received no part of it. Neil Armstrong was admitted to the hospital in August 2012 for vascular bypass surgery, according to a Sept. 24, 2014 motion filed by Carol Armstrong seeking to have the settlement approved. "He underwent the cardiovascular surgery, but post-surgical complications arose and he subsequently died," the motion said. Most of the settlement, about $5.2 million, was split between Armstrong's sons. The astronaut's brother and sister each received $250,000, and six grandchildren each got $24,000. Attorneys' fees of $160,000 were awarded. Claim: Documents: $6 million to Armstrong family in wrongful death.
[A]:
An Ohio hospital paid the estate of astronaut Neil Armstrong $6 million in a confidential agreement to settle allegations that post-surgical complications led to Armstrong's 2012 death, according to court documents and a report in the New York Times.