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.

[EX Q]: The Sackler family owns Purdue Pharma, the privately held drug company that has made billions from OxyContin, and Sacklers hold most of the seats on the board. Members of the family have been accused in a case brought by the state of Massachusetts of deceiving patients and doctors about the drug's risks as deaths mounted. And documents recently released in the case shine new light on former Purdue Pharma President Richard Sackler's role in the aggressive marketing of the powerful opioid. As the allegations mount, family members who made their fortunes well before OxyContin even went on the market have sought to distance themselves from their relatives. At the same time, activists have called on institutions to cut ties with the Sacklers, staging protests at museums that have received millions in donations. "The Sackler name is becoming synonymous with the opioid epidemic, and it is damning for these institutions to have their name up," said Nan Goldin, a photographer whose works have been displayed at Harvard's Arthur M. Sackler Museum and at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has a Sackler Wing. Lost in the outrage: One of the most generous and best known of the Sacklers died in 1987, nearly a decade before OxyContin was released. Arthur M. Sackler made his money from medical research, medical advertising and trade publications. His younger brothers, Raymond and Mortimer, bought out his stake after he died. Arthur Sackler's name is on a gallery at the Smithsonian, a wing of galleries at London's Royal Academy of Arts and a museum at Beijing's Peking University. The Sackler Wing at the Met, which houses the celebrated Temple of Dendur from ancient Egypt, was funded by all three brothers. Richard has likewise donated heavily to various institutions. After a federal investigation, Purdue Pharma and three executives none of them Sacklers pleaded guilty in 2007 and agreed to pay more than $600 million for misleading the public about the risks of OxyContin. The Stamford, Connecticut, company has also been hit with a multitude of lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis that killed more than 47,000 people in 2017 alone. Arthur's nephew, Richard Sackler, who became president of Purdue Pharma in 1999 and remains on the board, is at the center of the litigation. He and other current and former executives have been accused of hiding the dangers of the drug from doctors and patients, encouraging physicians to prescribe more of the highest doses and minimizing the abuse crisis as it was unfolding. "This is not too bad. It could have been far worse," he wrote to Purdue Pharma executives in 2001 after a federal prosecutor reported that 59 people in one state had died from OxyContin, according to documents released this week in the Massachusetts case. At the launch party for OxyContin in 1996, Richard Sackler boasted the drug would bring a "blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition," the documents say. Years later, they say, he sought to shift blame onto drug users themselves, recommending the company "hammer on the abusers in every way possible." "Richard followed that strategy for the rest of his career: collect millions from selling addictive drugs, and blame the terrible consequences on the people who became addicted," attorneys in Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's office wrote. "By their misconduct, the Sacklers have hammered Massachusetts families in every way possible. And the stigma they used as a weapon made the crisis worse." A spokesman for Richard Sackler's family referred questions about the lawsuit to the company. Purdue Pharma said in a statement that Massachusetts' case the first one brought by a state to personally name members of the Sackler family is "littered with biased and inaccurate characterizations." The company said it will "aggressively defend against these misleading allegations." Arthur Sackler's widow and children insist that they never financially benefited from the sale of OxyContin. "It is a gross injustice to connect Arthur to the opioid crisis some 30 years after his death when he had nothing to do with it," Dame Jillian Sackler said in a statement. "It denies the many important contributions he made working to improve world health and to build cultural bridges between peoples." But activists have made no distinction between Arthur and his relatives. In July, dozens of activists led by Goldin held a protest inside the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard, scattering pill bottles and holding banners that read "SHAME ON SACKLER." Similar demonstrations have been held at the Met and the Smithsonian. Goldin, who was addicted OxyContin for years, said that getting the institutions to act will be difficult. "Who is going to turn down the money? They offer millions to these institutions, and the board members are not necessarily committed to action, so it's going to take a lot," she said. A Met spokesman said that the Sackler family's support began decades before the opioid crisis, but that the museum will be examining its gift acceptance policies. The Guggenheim, home to the Sackler Center for Arts Education, had no comment. A Harvard spokesman said in an email that Arthur Sackler's donation in 1982 paid for the construction of the building that originally housed the museum but that his foundation does not fund the museum. ___ Associated Press reporter Verena Dobnik contributed to this report from New York. ___ Follow Alanna Durkin Richer at http://www.twitter.com/aedurkinricher
[EX A]: Opioid crisis brings unwanted attention to wealthy family.

[EX Q]: "The effort to pass a sweeping immigration law has shifted to the Republican controlled U.S. House of Representatives where it faces a much tougher challenge than it did in the Senate. Supporters say that any hope for success lies in compromise. House Republican leaders say the Senate bill falls short in significant ways, but Democrats argue that it already contains major concessions. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a long-time advocate for immigration reform from Chicago, highlighted how much his side was willing to give up to get the Senate bill through. ""They said to immigrants, 11 million of them, they said, tell you what we're going to do: For 10 years, you pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit,"" Gutierrez said on CNN's State of the Union. Gutierrez gave some examples: Immigrants with provisional legal status would not get help paying their health insurance premiums under Obamacare, and they would get no credit for any Social Security taxes they paid during the time they worked illegally. In this fact-check, we explore the terms of the deal in the Senate bill. Are they as stark as Gutierrez presents, or is the picture more complicated? Gutierrez's staff clarified that he was using shorthand to refer to means-tested federal benefits.That would include some of the country's largest programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF or welfare), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps). What the Senate bill says The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act allows immigrants without documents to get permission to live and work in the country legally. The Social Security Administration expects that nearly three-fourths of the estimated 11.5 million people here will qualify for what is called Registered Provisional Immigrant, status, or RPI. A smaller number of agricultural workers would qualify for a separate program called the blue card. Neither program grants citizenship or permanent legal status, but they provide a pathway to both. Applicants would need to pay a fine, a fee, and pass a criminal background check to qualify for provisional status. The bill has a specific provision that goes to Gutierrez's claim. For both RPI and blue card holders, it says, ""An alien who has been granted blue card (or RPI) status is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit"" and to be clear about what those benefits are, the bill refers to a law passed about 15 years ago. In 1996, Congress defined the public benefits that undocumented immigrants couldn't get. That law listed ""Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit."" Numerous agencies have interpreted this to mean Medicaid and Medicare, SNAP, energy assistance and so forth. The Senate bill also expressly blocks immigrants with temporary status from receiving any health insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. However, individuals can use their own money to buy their insurance through the clearinghouses called exchanges. ""Rep. Gutierrez is broadly correct, but not 100 percent,"" said Leighton Ku, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University who analyzed immigrant use of public benefits in a paper for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. ""If they are poor enough and meet other eligibility criteria, for example, if they are a child or a low-income parent, RPIs may be eligible for emergency Medicaid, as are unauthorized immigrants."" The 1996 law built in some exceptions for immigrants without legal documents. In addition to Medicaid paying for emergency medical treatment, young children are eligible for reduced school lunch programs and standard immunizations. The Women, Infant and Children program, WIC, can subsidize grocery bills for young families. So for children, women who are pregnant or have recently delivered, and medical emergencies, current law allows benefits for the undocumented and the Senate bill does not change that. Lastly, on the tax side, the Senate bill says ""an alien may not file an application for registered provisional immigrant status ... unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability."" In other words, these provisional residents must pay Uncle Sam. Regarding the 10 years Gutierrez mentioned, some immigrants under provisional status might be eligible for permanent resident status, a green card, sooner. If that happens, then they would gain access to public benefits in less than 10 years. However, both Social Security and Medicare require that a person or their spouse pay into the system for 10 years before they can claim any benefits. This applies to everyone, native born or not. And both programs are available only to citizens or permanent residents. People with provisional status would have Social Security and Medicare taxes deducted from their paychecks but would be ineligible to use those programs for 10 years. A dispute over benefits The U.S. Code defines public benefits, but there are some who say the list is incomplete. Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors limited immigration, said the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit provide aid to lower income workers through the tax code. A working family that owes no taxes and meets other criteria can apply and receive thousands of dollars from the government. ""Gutierrez is mistaken,"" Camarota said. ""These large programs are explicitly available to those in RPI status. Low income immigrants typically work and have children, so their use rates of these two programs are very high, as it will be for RPI folks."" Immigration reform advocates agree that provisional residents would gain from the tax credits. But Tanya Broder, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, counters that blocking their use of these credits would be a first for the tax code. ""Individuals granted RPI status are required to pay the same taxes and are subject to the same deductions from their income as all other taxpayers,"" Broder said. ""Denying them the ability to claim the EITC would create an unprecedented two-tiered tax system for lawfully present workers."" Regarding the accuracy of Gutierrez's statement, he was using the federal definition of benefits, and while lawmakers could decide otherwise, we take current law as our guide. For many years, Camarota and others have noted that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are deemed citizens and are eligible for benefits. Their family members could indirectly benefit. The Senate bill makes no change in that. Our ruling Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance. There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time."
[EX A]: "Luis Gutierrez Says under the Senate immigration bill, newly legalized immigrants will ""pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit"" for 10 years."

[EX Q]: The review was requested by the Swedish medicines regulatory agency, which decided in November to amend the product information for Norlevo, which contains levonorgestrel, the European Medicines Agency said. The labeling was changed to say that in clinical trials, contraceptive efficacy was reduced in women weighing 165.34 pounds or more, and levonorgestrel was not effective in women who weighed more than 176.37 pounds. Emergency contraceptives, which contain levonorgestrel or uliprista acetate in the European Union, act by blocking or delaying ovulation. The emergency contraceptives being reviewed include medicines that contain levonorgestrel, such as Norlevo, Levonelle/Postinor and Levodonna, the EMA said. It also includes a centrally-authorised medicine, ellaOne, which contains ulipristal acetate and was granted a marketing authorisation in Europe in 2009. The United States is also reviewing the effect of weight on the efficacy of emergency contraception.
[EX A]:
Europe assessing if weight affects 'morning after pill' success.