Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

New input case for you: Paragraph: Rather, for the heart. The Little Hats, Big Hearts program, sponsored by the American Heart Association, distributes little, red, handmade hats to babies born in February. The effort aims to spark conversations about congenital heart defects in newborn babies. Recently, Ryan Jerico, development director of AHA, brought 100 hats to donate to the Mon Health Family Birth Center. According to the AHA, congenital heart defects are the top killer of newborns with birth defects. The word "congenital" means the defect existed at birth. This happens when vessels around the heart or the heart itself don't form properly. Jerico said Little Hats, Big Hearts started in Chicago in 2014. In 2017, The Today Show did a story on the program, and the movement blew up nationwide. "Last year, West Virginia had a little over 1,300 hats donated. We distributed those to hospitals all over the state. Last year here, we had over 100 hats donated specifically to this hospital," he said. About 1,500 hats are being donated in West Virginia this year. They come from volunteers across the state who take time to knit them. "We want to make awareness of congenital heart defects. One in 100 babies is born with a congenital heart defect. Whether it's a small hole in their heart all the way to a seriously life-threatening condition," Jerico said. Jill Buterbaugh, health system director of Women's Service Line, said the best part about the program is the affiliation with the AHA and getting the word out about the program and heart defects, at birth and throughout life. "I think getting the awareness out, the Red Hat program causes us to talk about it with our patients. It's always a very nice gesture to be able to give the families a pretty red hat for the month of February and celebrate for Valentine's, as well," Buterbaugh said. Baby Anderson Plaski was the recipient of a red hat. Anderson's mom, Beth Plaski, is a nurse at Mon Health Medical Center, and she was happy to be able to bring awareness to heart defects by participating in the program. "I said absolutely that I would love to participate in this and to bring awareness to anybody that I can about the red hats," Beth Plaski said. "And now I'm able to do so, not only with my little guy, but through my work." ___ Information from: The Dominion Post, http://www.dominionpost.com Claim: Babies receive hats with heart through program.
Output:
What better way to celebrate American Heart Month and Valentine's Day than receiving a gift from the heart?