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: "Local and state governments are expected to have budget shortfalls as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. And, according to the Democrat in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race, the Republican incumbent thinks struggling communities should go bankrupt. That's what Cal Cunningham said about Sen. Thom Tillis. ""Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed,"" Cunningham tweeted April 24, linking to a Politico story. Is that true? There's a lot of context being left out. Yes, Tillis did say he is ""more or less aligned"" with what McConnell, the U.S. Senate majority leader, said about not giving more federal dollars to states that had pre-existing budget problems. McConnell proposed allowing them to file for bankruptcy, which states are not currently permitted to do. But Cunningham exaggerated what we know about Tillis' position. Tillis' comments clearly show he doesn't want the federal government to pay for state debt that wasn't incurred during the coronavirus outbreak. What's less clear is whether he wants those states to go the bankruptcy route. So what did McConnell say about bankruptcy? In a radio interview on April 22, McConnell said states with pre-existing problems might be better off declaring bankruptcy than by expecting additional funding from the federal government. But he didn't specifically say he ""wanted"" states to declare bankruptcy, only that he supports it as an option. ""I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route. It saves some cities. And there's no good reason for it not to be available,"" McConnell said. ""My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don't have to do that. That's not something I'm going to be in favor of."" As The Atlantic reported, McConnell expanded on his bankruptcy comments in another radio interview that day: ""We're not interested in solving their pension problems for them. We're not interested in rescuing them from bad decisions they've made in the past, we're not going to let them take advantage of this pandemic to solve a lot of problems that they created themselves (with) bad decisions in the past."" That brings us to Tillis and how closely he has ""agreed"" with McConnell. Audio of the April 24 town hall shows a constituent named Charles saying he has a question about the future: ""Will the Senate vote to bail out poorly-run states that were near bankrupt before COVID-19 hit?"" Tillis wasn't asked about states in general. He was asked specifically about ""poorly-run states that were near bankrupt"" prior to the pandemic. Tillis said he doesn't think those states should be bailed out. ""Well, Charles, that's a great question and personally I don't think we should, and I don't think that we can,"" Tillis said. He then said the $2 trillion economic stimulus gave him ""pause,"" but was worth it. Then he used North Carolina's state government as an example of good financial stewardship: ""I'm not so sure that taxpayer dollars for North Carolina should go to a state, a county, or a city that, like you said, was in poor economic shape before we ever had the virus. We need to take care of first responders. We need to take care of law enforcement. And we will do that. But I don't believe that I can support any measure that is effectively a bailout for poorly run state and local governments. ""We can look at things on a case-by-case basis where it's very clear that the damage is done because of the virus impact. But a broad-based bailout is not something I'd be prepared to support."" That's when Tillis brought up McConnell's comments. ""You probably heard Leader McConnell's comments about it, I'm more or less aligned with Leader McConnell on the issue,"" Tillis said, a few seconds later adding: ""I think we need to work on executing (plans already signed into law) and not really entertain a discussion of trillions more going into jurisdictions that really need to get their financial houses in order."" Cunningham spokeswoman Rachel Petri said Tillis's comments about McConnell show he's in lockstep with the Senate leader, who said ""I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route."" Tillis elaborated on his position in an interview with Fox News radio's Guy Benson on April 29. Benson asked him about McConnell's comments that money should not cover pre-pandemic budget holes (without mentioning the bankruptcy idea). Tillis said the Senate ""will go back and take a look at well-documented cases for the costs of the response, potentially the cause of some of the revenues in this year based on closures."" When PolitiFact asked about Tillis' position on the bankruptcy option, Tillis campaign spokesman Andrew Romeo said: ""Sen. Tillis has never advocated for any state or municipality to go bankrupt as a result of COVID-19, has already delivered billions of dollars in relief to North Carolina, and has consistently said that he supports providing targeted assistance for communities that have been impacted by the virus."" Cunningham tweeted, ""Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed."" The tweet lacks so much context that it's several degrees removed from what's actually been said. McConnell wasn't talking about just any states, he was talking about states that were in poor financial shape before the coronavirus outbreak. Additionally, McConnell said he supported bankruptcy as a novel option for states, particularly for those with pre-existing pension liabilities. Tillis said he agreed with McConnell ""more or less."" He agreed that Congress shouldn't pay for revenue losses that aren't related to the coronavirus outbreak. But Tillis never actually said he wanted states to go bankrupt. And he said he will consider federal aid for smaller governments on a case-by-case basis. Cunningham's tweet exaggerates what McConnell said and misrepresents what Tilils has said about federal coronavirus aid. It contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." Claim: Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed.
0

Paragraph: "An Instagram post making a political point about abortion in the United States muffs the landing by claiming that no one has died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. ""Death toll in America,"" the March 1 post says. ""Coronavirus 0, abortion 63,000,000."" This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Though any count of abortions in the United States can't be precise, the abortion number seems to be a reasonable estimate. (Read our 2012 fact-check for details.) But for COVID-19, the post is simply wrong. As of March 3, there have been nine deaths from COVID-19 in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported six deaths on their website while the Seattle Times reported three more deaths that afternoon. The victims were all in Washington state. Of course, the Instagram post was published on March 1. But the first death was reported on Feb. 29. Officials announced four more deaths on March 2." Claim: Instagram posts Says no one has died from the coronavirus in the United States.
0

Paragraph: "Rhode Island has issued a controversial vaccination requirement designed to fight HPV, or human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cancer. The requirement, ordered by the Rhode Island Department of Health, took effect Aug. 1. It has drawn fire from a group of critics that included the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which calls itself a ""free enterprise think tank."" The new policy calls for the vaccination of all seventh grade boys and girls before the start of school. The requirement does not apply to students whose doctors cite a medical problem; or to students whose parents object for religious reasons. And the health department defines religious reasons very liberally. Before a series of public information meetings on the vaccination requirement, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity posted this statement on its website: ""Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people."" We telephoned Mike Stenhouse, the center's founder and chief executive officer, and asked him for his sources. We didn't get anything from him right away. So we did our own research and found that Virginia is the only other state to require students to receive immunization for HPV. Virginia's vaccination requirement, which is only for sixth-grade girls, took effect in 2008 following an act of the legislature. Rhode Island's policy is the product of a regulatory process that began in 2013 under the leadership of Michael Fine, then the state's director of the Department of Health. In both states, HPV vaccination policies use the word ""required"" and both have opt-out provisions. In Virginia, parents have ""sole discretion"" on whether their children receive the vaccination. Stenhouse labels the policies in Virginia and Rhode Island as mandates. But Jason L. Schwartz, an assistant professor at the Yale University School of Public Health, says you can't call policies with such liberal exemptions mandates. The breadth of Rhode Island's opt-out provisions may not have been clear to the public or to Stenhouse before a public meeting Aug. 5. That's when Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, the new director of the Department of Health, told parents that their philosophical objections would qualify for the religious exemption spelled out in the regulations. But what about the center's claim that Rhode Island imposed the requirement by ""regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people""? And, as the center says later in its policy statement, was the health department's decision an example of ""regulatory despotism"" that ""bypasses the traditional democratic process""? While it's true that the General Assembly did not pass a law for the HPV vaccination, existing Rhode Island law gives the health director the power to adopt regulations to protect public health. And, of course, the health director is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the governor. Further, control of health-care policy by the executive branch is common in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for example, makes decisions affecting the health welfare of the country without first getting an act of Congress. ""To say it's anti-democratic would be a misunderstanding of how we structure our government in the United States,"" says Schwartz, the Yale professor, who co-authored a recent article about state vaccination requirements for the Journal of the American Medical Association. Also it's not as if the state adopted the regulation in a back room somewhere even though Stenhouse's organization on July 30 described the news of the requirement as a ""stunning revelation."" On Dec. 2, 2013, Fine, the former health director, filed a notice of public hearing for Jan. 16, 2014, and also solicited written statements on the issue. In response to criticism, the department delayed the beginning of the program from Aug. 1, 2014, to Aug. 1, 2015, according to a form for the regulation that was filed with the Office of Secretary of State Nellie M. Gorbea. The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union registered its ardent opposition to the proposed regulation at the hearing and in written comments. On Jan. 27, 2014, the ACLU called on the health department to reconsider the proposal. The ACLU also criticized the requirement on Facebook. That's seems like debate to us. We tried to get Stenhouse to explain what the center meant by the phrase ""regulatory fiat."" He declined. Instead, he sent us a written statement in which he said the center ""stands by its statement"" and he challenged PolitiFact's fairness and objectivity. Our ruling The center says ""Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people."" The center, in its statement, got two things right and two things wrong. It was right about Rhode Island being the second state and it was right that the requirement was not adopted by ""the elected representatives of the people."" It was wrong when it said the vaccination requirement was imposed ""by fiat"" and ""without public debate."" In 2014, the ACLU sharply criticized the vaccine requirement at the public hearing and debated the proposal in social media and on its website. As for acting by fiat, the regulation was put in place through a process established by law. And comments at a public hearing influenced that process, leading to a decision by the director of health to delay execution of the policy for one year. More recently, the new health director told the public that philosophical objections were enough to qualify for the religious exemption. In other words, parents can pretty much say whatever they want to get exemptions for their children. For those reasons, (If you have a claim you'd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at [emailprotected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)" Claim: Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people.
1