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.

LGBT advocates praised the new recommendations for giving attention to a community that is often left out of sex education policies. But some parents and conservative groups assailed the more than 700-page document as an assault on parental rights, arguing it exposes children to ideas about sexuality and gender that should be taught at home. The guidance approved Wednesday by the California State Board of Education does not require educators to teach anything. It is designed as a guide for teachers to meet state standards on health education, such as nutrition, physical activity and combating alcohol and drug abuse. But it's the parts about sex that got the most attention during a public hearing on Wednesday. The framework tells teachers that students in kindergarten can identify as transgender and offers tips for how to talk about that, adding "the goal is not to cause confusion about the gender of the child but to develop an awareness that other expressions exist." It gives tips for discussing masturbation with middle-schoolers, including telling them it is not physically harmful, and for discussing puberty with transgender teens that creates "an environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about gender." "As the parent of three kids, we're on a careful trajectory here not to be introducing things as though they are endorsed in some way," board president Linda Darling-Hammond said. But Patricia Reyes, a 45-year-old mother of six, doesn't believe that. She traveled more than 400 miles (about 644 kilometers) from her home in Southern California to attend Wednesday's hearing, bringing along her 4-year-old daughter, Angeline, who held a sign that read: "Protect my innocence and childhood." "It's just scary what they are going to be teaching. It's pornography," she said. "If this continues, I'm not sending them to school." Much of the pushback focused not on the framework, but on the books it recommends students read. An earlier draft of the document suggested high schoolers read the book: "S.E.X. : The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties." It includes descriptions of anal sex, bondage and other sexual activity. Several parents read from the book and held it up so board members could see the pictures, which many described as "obscene." The board responded by removing the book, plus a few others, from the guidance. "It's important to know the board is not trying to ban books. We're not saying that the books are bad," board member Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon said. "But the removal will help avoid the misunderstanding that California is mandating the use of these books." More than 200 people signed up to speak during a public hearing on Wednesday that lasted for several hours. Supporters and opponents mingled together in the lobby of the California Department of Education, where parents handed out snacks to appease their young children while waiting for their number to appear on dry-erase board telling them it was their turn to get one minute of time at the microphone. Speakers included 16-year-old Phoenix Ali Rajah, a transgender boy who said he is rarely taught information for people like him during sex education classes at his Los Angeles area high school. "I'm never taught about how to be in a relationship with gay men," he said, adding that the "conversation with sex starts from a different place." Michele McNutt, 49, focused on the framework's attention to healthy relationships and consent, something she said is never too soon to teach her two daughters in public school, ages 11 and 9. "Withholding medically accurate, scientific information from them actually causes more harm and does not actually protect innocence," she said while wearing a purple T-shirt that read "protect trans students. "If you don't give kids accurate information about their own body ... how are they able to make good choices?" The guidance was developed with input from teachers across the state, and several spoke in favor of the recommendations on Wednesday. But not Tatyana Dzyubak, an elementary school teacher in the Sacramento area. "I shouldn't be teaching that stuff," she said. "That's for parents to do."
California overhauls sex education guidance for teachers.

"We don't know yet if the Ebola scare will help either party or be an afterthought in the midterm elections, but liberal blogger Doug Muder argued that confronting Ebola shows that it makes sense to vote Democratic. For Muder, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is the poster child for a distinct partisan contrast. ""Ebola points out why we need a fully funded government,"" Muder wrote. ""When there's no immediate threat of disease, government agencies like the CDC look like bureaucratic waste. When Rand Paul put out a 'Tea Party budget' in 2011, it included a big cut in the CDC, and virtually no explanation as to how this would affect its mission."" In this fact-check, we look at whether Paul proposed a ""big cut"" in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Muder had blogged about Paul's budget in 2011. Back then, Muder asked how the CDC would be able to fulfill its mission if, as Paul wanted, its budget was cut by $1.165 billion. We went back to Paul's original budget documents. One posted January 2011 called for the $1.165 billion reduction that Muder mentioned. Paul then assembled a more complete budget plan in May 2011. It would cut the CDC budget by 20 percent from its Fiscal Year 2008 levels. Depending on whether you include special funds to evaluate federal health programs, Congress appropriated between $6.049 billion and $6.375 billion for the CDC in FY 2008. So Rand's 20 percent reduction amounts to either $1.209 billion or $1.275 billion in cuts. That's slightly more than Muder described. Paul wrote in his plan, ""The center is often mentioned in media reports highlighting their lavish accommodations. For example, in 2005, the CDC built a conference center for $106 million, complete with large-screen plasma TVs. They also spent tens of millions of dollars on state-of-the-art anti-gravity seating for employees, as well as luxury furniture. Taxpayers can no longer afford the luxury working atmosphere of the CDC."" That budget plan remains posted on the websiterandpaul2016.com, Paul's Senate re-election website. Brian Darling, a Paul spokesman, agreed that the senator has proposed these cuts in the past, but said that funding and the ability to fight Ebola don't inevitably go hand-in-hand. ""If you look closely at the CDC budget, there are funds that have been wasted on projects that have nothing to do with disease prevention,"" Darling said. Darlingthen noted that Congress has been at least as supportive of the CDC as the Obama administration. Darlingsaid that in an omnibus spending bill, Congress appropriated $6.9 billion for the CDC, about $240 million more than the administration requested. Darlinghighlighted another $88 million for Ebola in a continuing resolution bill approved in September. However, neither action undercuts Muder's point, and Paul voted against both measures. It's important to remember that those bills doled out money across many government agencies, not specifically for the CDC alone. Sometimes reasonable people can quibble over whether a cut is ""big"" or not. In this case, Paul himself called his cuts ""serious""in a 2011 op-ed he penned for the Wall Street Journal. ""My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity,"" Paul wrote. ""But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt."" Our ruling Muder said that in 2011 Sen. Paul proposed cutting the CDC budget by $1.165 billion. Budget documents confirm that. In fact, Paul's most detailed budget that year would have trimmed CDC spending by slightly more, about $1.2 billion. While the Senate approved two broad spending measures to fund the CDC in 2014, Paul voted against both."
"Doug Muder Says Sen. Rand Paul's 2011 budget ""included a big cut in the CDC."

Tapering is presumably free in and of itself, since it's a slow and gradual lessening of opioids (which a person might already be using to begin with), so we'll mark this N/A. However, it would require medical oversight and perhaps other alternative pain treatments, both of which aren't free. We're told that with tapering, based on the literature review, "patients on average saw improved pain, function, and quality of life." But what do those terms mean,exactly, and how much of an improvement on those criteria numbers-wise are we talking about here? Readers aren't told. Some numbers would have helped readers make more sense of what "improved" means. The harms are addressed right away: Come off opioids too quickly, and patients can suffer by having little recourse to deal with chronic pain. Some even resort to illicit drugs or commit suicide. One of the study's authors is also quoted as recommending doctors and patients to exercise caution if tapering is being attempted, and another explains that not all patients respond the same way (and do poorly with tapering). This article does a thorough job of laying out the study's design, discussing what it found, and what its flaws might be. The author, in fact, dedicated several paragraphs to hedging the study's conclusions by walking readers through its hang-ups, including its reliance on small studies with sometimes poor methodologies. The self-selecting nature of the subjects in those studies is also described i.e. only those who volunteered to taper off opioids were studied, not people who didn't want to go off opioids. We didn't see any gratuitous wording about the opioid epidemic or treating painkiller addiction in this story. A refreshing number of outside experts are quoted or cited in this story, and their remarks weren't the typical "the study was intriguing" variety. Their quotes added some helpful context, such as how long it can take doctors to wean people off opioids ("months or even years") and how everyone responds differently to tapering and how some do poorly with it. This is one of the appreciable strengths of the story. It not only implies going cold-turkey as an option (and the pitfalls of that approach), but also digs into the topic of non-opioid pain-relief treatments to help patients deal with chronic pain as people they taper. We're also told how suchtreatmentscan be too expensive/out of reach for some, even those with health insurance either due to lacking coverage or nearby access to capable doctors and facilities. The story delivers: It states that tapering is available, yet that it's to be attempted with caution. Non-opioid pain-relief treatments, which are also noted by the story, are also said to be available, though out of reach for many. While the approach of tapering itself itself isn't new, this article explains that the review is novel in that it increases confidence in the idea of tapering as an effective though with many caveats, since the studies used in the review were mostly of "poor" or "fair" quality. We didn't detect any evidence of copy-and-paste press release quotes or passages in this story.
A new study suggests it's possible to get people off opioids and improve their pain