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:
"As the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race veers toward a conclusion, the state's next senator needs the support of women voters. Incumbent Jeanne Shaheen underscored that point when she targeted Republican challenger Scott Brown's record supporting women's reproductive rights during his tenure as a state senator from Massachusetts. Her aim was to undercut Brown's assertion that he is a pro-choice politician. An ad with a female narrator released on Oct. 7 said, ""In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The ad, titled ""Force,"" drew a swift response from Brown. He held a press conference the same day the ad was released, calling it a lie and adding that it was ""not only insensitive, it is also deeply offensive."" ""I have always been a pro-choice, independent Republican and have a strong record of supporting women's health care,"" Brown said in Derry, N.H., with his wife Gail by his side. Brown demanded that Shaheen pull the ad, and the next day he launched his own ad calling Shaheen's commercial a ""smear campaign."" More than ever in this hotly contested Senate race, this seemed like a job for PolitiFact. For support, the ad, and Shaheen's campaign, pointed to Massachusetts Senate Bill 979, ""An Act Relative to a Woman's Right to Know,"" filed in 2005. While the bill co-sponsored by Brown and Republican Michael R. Knapik eventually failed, it would have given any woman seeking an abortion information and mandated 24 hours to consider the consequences of that decision. (Exceptions would only be given in the case of a medical emergency.) ""The purpose of the Woman's Right to Know Act is to ensure that every woman considering an abortion receives complete information on the procedure, the risks, the status of her unborn child, and her alternatives, and sufficient reflection time, thereby reducing the possibility of serious, lasting, or life threatening consequences of a medical, emotional and psychological nature,"" the bill states. Similar laws have been proposed and enacted in other states following a 1992 Supreme Court decision allowing the state of Pennsylvania under its ""Abortion Control Act"" to require a woman seeking an abortion to give her informed consent prior to the procedure, receive a host of information about abortion and adoption, and wait 24 hours before having an abortion. The introduction to the Massachusetts bill cites that Supreme Court decision, saying the state ""has an important interest in ensuring that women seeking abortions are provided a fully informed choice and a sufficient period of time to reflect on the information provided, 'to reduce the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.' Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 882 (1992)."" So how about those photographs of fetuses that women would be ""forced"" to look at? Like similar laws proposed and passed elsewhere, the proposed Massachusetts law would have required doctors or their representatives to provide women with lots of information at least 24 hours before an abortion was scheduled, including the names of adoption agencies and contact information for public and private agencies that offer financial and medical support to women throughout a pregnancy and after childbirth. It also required women to receive descriptions of the ""anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, including color photographs."" If photos were unavailable ""realistic drawings"" were considered acceptable. The bill made clear that photos of fetuses must be provided to women seeking abortions, but didn't stop there. It also called for descriptions of the different methods of abortion and ""the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications commonly associated with each method; a description of the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications of pregnancy and delivery; a description of the support obligations of the father of a child born alive."" Before performing an abortion, the doctor or a representative would have to ask the woman if she had ""seen"" the information and ""provide the woman with an opportunity to contact abortion alternative agencies at this time should she so desire."" In addition, a woman's signature was required before the abortion was performed to give her consent and ""indicate that she has been offered the information described in this section."" Brown says the bill was intended to give adoption a chance and ""did not force women to do anything. I would never force women to do anything."" He's got a point. Nowhere in the bill is the word ""force"" used. Still, the language of the bill certainly ensures women would be given the information, asks them if they had ""seen it,"" and provided at least 24 hours to review it before having an abortion. Our ruling Shaheen's ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification."
answer:
In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses.

question:
The story sidebar estimates that a full course of treatment can cost $3000 or more. It could have added that this treatment is unlikely to be covered by many insurance companies. This was the biggest hole inan otherwise reasonably solid story. The article claims that there is "growing evidence" that neurofeedback can help treat peoplewith ADHD. However, the story never describes any of the results of this purported increase in research that supposedly documents these benefits. The closest we come is the description of a study which hasn't even been published yet. The story also suggests that neurofeedback's benefits might last longer than those of medication. Again, however, we are never given any sound basis to believe that neurofeedback works at all let alone better than other treatments. At the same time, the story leans heavily on testimony from a journalist who has written a book about ADHD and claims neurofeedback worked for her and her son. We are told that the primary improvement she saw withher sonwas that he was "easier to live with."Although this kind of anecdotal reportcan be usefulto add context to scientific findings,it iscertainly no substitute for reporting on the actual clinical outcomesof research. The story failed to discussany potential harms of neurofeedback treatment. The most prominent of these isthat patientscould forego other treatment approaches that have better supporting evidence and are more likely to reduce symptoms. There is also some evidence thatneurofeedback can cause seizures or makesymptomsworse in some individuals with psychological disorders. In addition, the need for frequent treatments may necessitate taking a child out of school. Readers should come away from this story with a generallyaccurate feel for where the research on this treatment stands. The story told readers early on that neurofeedback is "scientifically uNPRoved" for the treatment of ADHD. It backs up this contention later in this story by noting that almost all research on this treatment hasn't involved aplacebo control group. And the onlystudy toinclude such a group apparently hasn't released its results yet and seems to have involved a very small number of patients. In addition,the story quotes an expert who emphasizes that other forms of treatment (e.g. medication and behavior therapy) have better evidence to support their effectiveness for ADHD. We did think the story focused a bit too much on a single patient anecdote (a deficiency discussed later under the "Benefits" criterion) an emphasis whichmakes the treatment sound very promising with little justification. The story could have struck a better balance by toning this section down a bit. No disease-mongering in this story. In addition to extensive comments from the journalist book author who discusses her experience with neurofeedback, the story quotes a Duke University researcher who is an expert on ADHD and offers some counterbalancing perspective. The story quotes a researcher who says that two other approaches medication and behavior therapy have a more extensive research base supporting their use for ADHD compared with neurofeedback. It's clear from the story that this type of treatment is available to the general public. We like that the story cautioned readers to look out forunqualified therapists andgave tipsfor finding reputable clinicians. The story could have been more specific about how many trained professionals there are and how easyit isto find them outside of large population centers. The story does not oversell the novelty of neurofeedback for the treatment of ADHD. This story does not appear to be based on a news release.
answer:
Train The Brain: Using Neurofeedback To Treat ADHD

question:
The Democratic Senate Majority plans to pass a ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes and also smokeless flavored tobacco products as soon as next week, a Democratic Senate spokesman said Monday. Senate Democrats also plan to move ahead on seven other bills including a study on the long-term health effects of e-cigarette use and laws preventing tobacco ads and new tobacco stores from popping up near schools. It's less clear how lawmakers will act on Democratic Sen. Brad Hoylman's bill to ban all flavored tobacco products including menthol cigarettes. The exclusion of menthol flavorings from tobacco restrictions at the state and federal levels has long drawn criticism from public health and civil rights groups who say the tobacco industry has marketed menthol cigarettes to African Americans for decades. "It always seemed very normal and accessible so I never really questioned it," Albany high school senior Hassani Hamilton, 17, said. "What I've come to realize is these products are deadly and their rampant use in my community is no accident." New York state health officials issued a ban on most flavored e-cigarettes last fall in response to worries that vaping may cause illnesses and that its use is growing among teenagers who say they're attracted by flavorings. But the ban's exclusion of menthol and tobacco flavorings drew scrutiny from a state judge in her decision to continue to block it Friday. The ban was initially blocked last fall after the vaping industry sued to stop New York from enforcing emergency regulations banning the sale of most flavored e-cigarettes. Acting Supreme Court Justice Catherine Cholakis said state health regulators went beyond their authority when they passed the ban, which she said touched on policy issues that lawmakers should decide. Judge Cholakis said it's a "natural question" why the regulations excluded tobacco and menthol e-liquid flavors when she hasn't seen evidence that supports continued use of those flavors. Hamilton and representatives of public health and civil rights groups urged lawmakers Monday to ban all flavored cigarette products, and not just e-cigarettes. Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year and 93% of adult African American smokers began smoking by using menthol cigarettes, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "It is the direct result of a targeted and well-funded effort by the tobacco companies over the last several decades to addict communities like mine to nicotine and tobacco," Hamilton said. But it's unclear whether there's broad support to ban all flavored cigarettes in New York. Republican Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker last year signed a bill to allow the nation's first ban of menthol cigarettes starting in June. New York's governor has said he'll propose legislation this year to prohibit the sale of "all" flavored e-cigarettes and ban vaping ads targeted to youth. It's unclear whether Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's legislation would include menthol and tobacco flavorings, which the state's health commissioner has recommended. Cuomo has expressed concern that a New York ban on menthol cigarettes could run into legal issues because they're allowed on the federal level. A proposed federal ban on menthol cigarettes has stalled. And President Donald Trump's vaping ban excludes menthol flavoring. The vaping industry praised the judge's Friday decision and said bans don't work. "With this important ruling, the court has prevented the state from creating a huge new black market and ushering in a new public health crisis along with it something that may still come to pass if the New York Legislature bans flavors," Vapor Technology Association Executive Director Tony Abboud said.
answer:
New York called to include menthol in flavored tobacco ban.