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.
Example: "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."
Example solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example explanation: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

Problem: Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States, said its move was spurred by a federal appeals court decision last month clearing the administration's way to restrict Title X grants under a new policy critics have branded a "gag rule." In addition to barring recipients from making abortion referrals, the policy requires financial and physical separation between facilities funded by Title X and those where actual abortions are performed. The rule, imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is part of a broad effort by the Republican president, his allies in Congress and numerous Republican-dominated state legislatures to curtail abortion access in recent years. Planned Parenthood, accounting for about one-fifth of all Title X funds granted, had vowed to cease accepting money from the program months ago, when HHS said it would start enforcing the new restrictions. The group said it would rely instead on private donations and emergency funds to make up the difference as best it could. Monday's move marked a formal Title X withdrawal, to remain permanent unless Congress acts to overturn the restriction or legal challenges prevail in court. "Due to an unethical and dangerous gag rule, the Trump administration has forced Planned Parenthood grantees out of Title 10," Alexis McGill, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, told journalists on a conference call. Planned Parenthood is not alone. Legislatures in Maryland and Massachusetts preemptively adopted measures to opt out of Title X and provide state funding in its place if the new rule took effect. And governors of five other states - Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington - have said they would do the same. So has Maine Family Planning, a nonprofit, sole recipient of Title X funds in that state. Congress appropriated $286 million in Title X grants in 2017 to Planned Parenthood and other health centers to provide birth control, disease screening and other reproductive health and counseling services to poor women. That funding already was prohibited from being used to pay for abortions, but abortion opponents have long complained that the money in effect subsidized Planned Parenthood as a whole, including its abortion services. The organization had been providing healthcare to about 40% of the 4 million people who rely on Title X funding annually, with 600 of its clinics receiving money from the program. Critics said Planned Parenthood's action showed it was primarily focused on abortion. "In withdrawing from Title X, Planned Parenthood has made it crystal clear that abortion is its number one priority," said Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with the Catholic Association. Abortion has remained one of the most contentious issues in U.S. politics since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision affirming a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. Opponents cite religious beliefs in decrying abortion as immoral, while the other side casts abortion restrictions as infringing on women's private medical choices and control over their own bodies. Federal judges in Washington state, California and Oregon, among nearly two dozen states challenging the administration's rule in court, issued preliminary injunctions against its enforcement earlier this year. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 20 lifted those injunctions, and the same court rejected emergency bids to overturn that decision in July. That allowed the restrictions to take effect while court cases proceed. The rule largely restored a restriction created in 1988 and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991, only to be suspended by the Clinton administration in 1993.
Solution: Planned Parenthood opts out of U.S. subsidies in fight over abortion referrals.