Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Paragraph: "Health insurance has emerged as a defining issue in the Georgia Senate race, and Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue declared that there is one angle where he can't be attacked. ""I've always believed in protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Period,"" Perdue tweeted Aug. 18. ""Anyone who says otherwise just isn't telling the truth."" The campaign ad attached to the tweet adds, ""Health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period."" That is a sweeping policy guaranteed coverage for anyone, with no penalty for a preexisting condition. If that's Perdue's position now, it doesn't jibe with his record as a lawmaker. He's voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act Obamacare and a bill he cosponsored to guarantee coverage fails to match the ironclad protections under that law. Perdue makes no bones about opposing the ACA, which contains several interlocking provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. He voted to repeal it in 2015 and backed the Senate's failed repeal-and-replace effort in 2017. Perdue's campaign said that it's possible to be against Obamacare, and in favor of patient protections. It said, ""Perdue co-sponsored legislation to ensure preexisting conditions are covered at no additional cost to those patients."" That bill, called the Protect Act, never came to a vote in the Senate and doesn't match the ACA's guarantees. The current law blocks insurers from using any eligibility rule, list of covered services or pricing to deny anyone coverage. The Protect Act does say that insurance companies can't deny coverage based on ""any preexisting condition."" But it gives a carrier the option to deny certain coverage, if ""it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately."" Since the bill doesn't define what that clause means, it leaves open the possibility that carriers could use it to drop coverage of certain expensive diseases from all of their policies. To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that's a big loophole. ""Insurers could exclude someone's preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,"" Hoffman told us in 2018 when the bill was first introduced. ""That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers preexisting condition protection."" Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us concerns about loopholes are reasonable. ""Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,"" Whitlock said in 2018. ""If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that's probably true."" Hoffman notes that the Protect Act's language against insurers discriminating based on genetic information also concerns her. The bill says carriers ""shall not request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to any individual prior to such individual's enrollment."" But the bill says information collected incidentally can be used by insurers. That could happen, for example, when an employee inadvertently reveals details on a questionnaire, despite being told not to include information that can be linked back to their DNA. Insurers can't use that information for setting premiums, but Hoffman says it could shape the list of covered maladies. ""If an insurer comes across genetic information incidentally, it seems to me that they could exclude any related conditions,"" Hoffman warned. ""This loophole could be huge considering the amount of incidental collection and how broadly it is construed."" The bill has other holes: for instance, permitting insurers to charge women more than men. Perdue's stance on short-term health insurance plans also raises issues. These plans offer limited coverage that's intended to tide people over when they're between jobs. They don't need to follow the strict rules of the ACA. They don't have to cover the package of essential benefits under the law and they can exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, they were limited to 90 days' coverage. The Trump administration extended that to 364 days, with the option to renew them for up to three years. Perdue voted against a 2018 resolution to oppose Trump's expansion of short-term plans. The measure failed by one vote. The Perdue campaign said that Obamacare isn't the only way to take care of people. ""The best way to protect those with preexisting conditions, lower costs for all Georgians, and expand access to coverage is through free market solutions,"" the campaign said in a statement. The campaign noted that many counties have only one insurance company offering coverage. It argues that if more companies found it profitable to move into those areas, competition would improve the options for consumers. Perdue said that his policy is that ""health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period."" Perdue opposes the Affordable Care Act and weighed in on the side of short-term health plans that lack some of the ACA's strong protections for people with preexisting conditions. Perdue's bill to maintain those protections contains loopholes that insurance companies could use to avoid covering certain conditions. Perdue's promise is sweeping and absolute. The policies he has backed offer some limited protections, but don't match that promise." Claim: David Perdue Says his policy is that "health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period."
0

Paragraph: U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren became the subject of increased scrutiny and rhetorical attacks from the right in January 2019, after she declared she was in the running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. Against that background, a viral meme re-emerged on social media that attributed an eye-catching viewpoint on abortion to the Massachusetts senator: "'Having an abortion is no different than someone having their tonsils removed.' Liberal Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren. Yes, she really said this and is really this damn crazy and stupid." In reality, Warren did not make these remarks. On 24 July 2018, an opinion column she wrote was published in Marie Claire magazine, one speculating that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice would create a conservative-leaning majority on the court that could bring a reversal of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision: "The threat of overturning Roe v. Wade is also serious. When abortions are illegal, women don't stop getting them they just risk their lives to do it. Today, thanks to Roe, getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out. Before Roe v. Wade, many women turned to back-alley butchers to end their pregnancies." In September 2018, the pro-life website LifeNews published an article that created a misleading impression of what Warren had actually said under the headline "Elizabeth Warren Compares Abortion to 'Getting Your Tonsils Out. '" That article went on to state that "A pro-abortion Democrat from Massachusetts, Warren even likened the killing of an unborn baby in an abortion to getting tonsils removed." In January 2019, the right-leaning NewsTarget website went even further in misrepresenting Warren's actual remarks, with an article that carried the headline "Senator Elizabeth Warren likens an abortion to getting your TONSILS YANKED, because population control freaks think human babies in the womb are just worthless tissue." Actually, Warren was making a very different point. Her column linked to a Time magazine article about a 2015 study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. The lead author of that study, Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, told Time that the rate of complications observed after abortion procedures was lower than that seen after wisdom tooth removals and tonsillectomies. That's a point Upadhyay has made elsewhere in support of the comparative safety of abortion procedures, and in opposition to laws restricting access to abortion or imposing stricter requirements before a woman can undergo the procedure. In an op-ed published by USA Today on 21 January 2019, Dr. Upadhyay wrote: "Advocates of these [restrictive] laws usually use the misconception that abortion is unsafe to make arguments in favor of admitting privileges requirements and other abortion restrictions. In reality, less than one-third of 1 percent of abortions result in a major complication. Abortion is safer than wisdom tooth extraction and tonsillectomy, so it's clear that these laws aren't actually about protecting patients. Indeed, my research shows these policies have no observable effects on patient safety." So when Warren wrote that "getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out," she was making a point about the relative safety of the procedure as part of a broader argument in defense of Roe v. Wade. Claim: "Sen. Elizabeth Warren once said: ""Havingan abortion is no different than someone having their tonsils removed."
0

Paragraph: The plague outbreak has killed 63 people in the Indian Ocean island nation, Madagascar's government says. For the first time, the disease long seen in the country's remote areas is largely concentrated in its two largest cities, Antananarivo and Toamasina. Global health officials have responded quickly. The World Health Organization, criticized for its slow response to the 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, has released $1.5 million and sent plague specialists and epidemiologists. The Red Cross is sending its first-ever plague treatment center to Madagascar. On Wednesday, Madagascar's minister of public health rallied doctors and paramedics in a packed auditorium at the country's main hospital, saying they're not allowed to go on vacation. "Let's be strong, because it's only us. We're at the front, like the military," Mamy Lalatiana Andriamanarivo said. The outbreak could continue until the end of infection season in April, experts warn. Madagascar has about 400 plague cases per year, or more than half of the world's total, according to a 2016 World Health Organization report. Usually, they are cases of bubonic plague in the rural highlands. Bubonic plague is carried by rats and spread to humans through flea bites. It is fatal about the half the time, if untreated. Most of the cases in the current outbreak are pneumonic plague, a more virulent form that spreads through coughing, sneezing or spitting and is almost always fatal if untreated. In some cases, it can kill within 24 hours. Like the bubonic form, it can be treated with common antibiotics if caught in time. The WHO calls plague a "disease of poverty" caused in part by unsanitary living conditions. Madagascar has a per capita GDP of about $400, and national programs to control the disease have been "hampered by operational and management difficulties," according to a report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. But the airborne pneumonic plague, which accounts for about 75 percent of cases in the current outbreak, makes no class distinctions. "Normally, the people who catch the plague are dirty people who live in poor areas, but in this case we find the well-to-do, the directors, the professors, people in every place in society, catching the disease," said Dr. Manitra Rakotoarivony, Madagascar's director of health promotion. The current outbreak began in August, earlier than usual, when a 31-year-old man who had spent time in a village in the central highlands, Ankazobe, traveled by bush taxi to the east coast, unaware that he had the plague. He died en route and was buried without any safety precautions in Toamasina. Four people in contact with him also died. Residents of the capital began to relax in recent days amid the global response to the outbreak, but the disease remains a serious threat with the number of new cases per day remaining steady. Madagascar has fought the disease for more than a century. It was introduced to the island in 1898 when steamships from India brought rats infected with the bacteria that causes the disease. The plague nearly disappeared from Madagascar for 60 years, starting in 1930, but re-emerged in recent decades. The black rats that carry the disease in the highlands have gradually developed resistance to it. Unsafe burial practices that involve touching corpses are another reason the disease spreads, according to a 2015 study by scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Madagascar. The outbreak has alarmed neighboring countries. A 34-year-old man in another Indian Ocean island nation, the Seychelles, contracted the pneumonic plague while in Madagascar. He was treated in his own country and no longer has symptoms. It was the first-ever plague case in the Seychelles, said the country's public health commissioner, Dr. Jude Gedeon. Another Seychellois, a 49-year-old basketball coach, died of the plague last month while in Antananarivo for a tournament. Seychelles authorities have established a plague isolation ward and announced that schools will be closed through Tuesday. Foreign travelers who have recently visited Madagascar are not being allowed into the country. While the WHO says the risk of the epidemic spreading beyond the region is very low and does not advise restrictions on travel to Madagascar, Air Seychelles has canceled all flights to and from the island until further notice. "The situation is still not under control in Madagascar," Gedeon said. Claim: In Madagascar, plague outbreak now threatens largest cities.
2