Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: On 21 January 2019, Slate published a article headlined “The Trump Administration Quietly Changed the Definition of Domestic Violence and We Have No Idea What For.” That story highlighted significant changes to the definition of domestic violence appearing on website of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Violence Against Women office. An archived version of that website from April 2018 previously defined domestic violence as:  A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone. By contrast, the current version of that same website encompasses only acts of physical violence under the definition of domestic violence:  The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. We reached out to the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) for an explanation on what motivated the change in the definition and whether that change was spurred by an actual change in law or policy. We received a response from Allison Randall, Chief of Staff for the OVW, that did not adequately answer either question. Her response is reproduced in full below:  The Department is strongly committed to enforcing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and combating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with the law enacted by Congress. Domestic violence is clearly defined in VAWA, and OVW has always used the statutory definition in carrying out its mission. By following the statute, the Department ensures the funds made available by Congress are employed in the most effective manner possible to reduce violence and to assist crime victims. In fiscal year 2018, OVW awarded a record $467 million under VAWA. President Trump’s request for fiscal year 2019 OVW funding was the largest ever requested. OVW discretionary grantees serve an average of 125,000 victims every six months and formula subgrantees serve over 400,000 victims each year. VAWA funding supports victim advocates who answer over a million hotline calls and provides over 2 million housing and shelter bed-nights for victims and their children annually. Every year, VAWA-funded professionals assist victims in securing more than 200,000 protection orders. The narrower definition employed in the current version of the OVW website stems from the definition provided in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as it relates to disbursing funds for VAWA grant programs. While it is true this narrow definition has not changed as it relates to the VAWA, it is unclear why the DOJ found it necessary to remove information about non-physical intimate partner violence. Writing in Slate, Natalie Nanasi, a Professor of Law and the Director of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University, argued that:  A domestic violence relationship rarely begins with physical violence, much less violence that rises to the level of a crime. If you were punched on a first date, odds are there wouldn’t be a second. Intimate partner abuse is insidious: Emotional and psychological abuse escalates to physical violence as an abuser’s need and/or ability to exert power and control increases. In the United States today, more than half of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. If we do not acknowledge the “small” things — yelling or screaming, name-calling, and controlling or monitoring communication and social media — victims may not realize they are in danger until it is too late. In our response to the statement from OVW, we suggested that they had not provided any explanation for the change to their website and requested further clarification; if we receive such clarification, we will update our story. Claim: The DOJ changed the definition of domestic violence on their website without explanation.

A: The Violence Against Women Act, which was extended by President Obama in 2013, expired at midnight on 22 December 2018 as a result of the 2018-19 federal government shutdown over funding for President Trump’s proposed border wall.
****
Q: Paragraph: A photograph popped up on social media in May 2015, described as a picture of a blood clot removed from an 80-year-old patient after he presented with a 2-day-long nosebleed. According to the accompanying text, the patient coded shortly after arrival at an emergency room, and a blood clot that went “from his nose down his airway and into his lungs” was removed via intubation:  80 yr old male with nose bleed for 2 days. Refused to go to ER. Wife finally talked husband to go to ER. He coded shortly after arriving. Medical doctor went to do intubation and found this. Pulled it out in one piece. It a blood clot that goes from his nose down his airway and into his lungs. It an amazingly beautiful blood clot. The photograph was shared by Kevin Kimberlin, an EMT who told us that the patient was treated at a hospital he transports to and that he picture was taken by a friend of his who worked on the patient. In November 2018, the New England Journal of Medicine website posted a similar photograph of “an intact cast of the right bronchial tree” that was “spontaneously expectorated” by a patient “during an extreme bout of coughing”: Claim: A photograph shows a large blood clot removed from a patient's lung.

A: A photograph purportedly captured a huge blood clot removed from a patient's lung.
****
Q: Paragraph: No discussion of costs – not of PSA testing nor of subsequent biopsies. These are big cost issues that warranted at least a line. The story states the 1 in 20 needing biopsy for total PSA vs. the 1 in 7 needing biopsy for PSA velocity. What the article doesn’t quantify is whether there would be fewer false positive findings if PSA velocity was ignored. Better job than its HealthDay competition in actually quantifying the impact on reducing unnecessary biopsies. The story didn’t do as good a a job as its HealthDay competition, which spelled out how men in the study were all from the placebo arm of a drug trial and which provided a bit more detail on the quality of the evidence. Neither story indicated that study subjects were highly selected– normal prostate exam and PSA < 3 as entry criteria. This is important information that may influence how generalizable the findings may be. No disease mongering here. The story included quotes from two independent sources. The HealthDay competition addressed in a much more explcit manner the option of not having the PSA test at all, when it reported: “Current American Cancer Society prostate screening cancer guidelines recommend that men make an informed decision with their doctor about whether to be tested for prostate cancer. “Research has not yet proven that the potential benefits of testing outweigh the harms of testing and treatment,” according to the ACS.” The story stated that most men over 50 get PSA blood tests. The story made it clear that the study was to examine the value in a common practice of doing a biopsy in men with a normal PSA level but in whom an increase in PSA has been detected. Did not appear to rely on a sole news release. Claim: Study: PSA rise not good prostate cancer predictor

A:
It did a better job quantifying harms, but a weaker job in evaluating the evidence. It also never addressed the option of not having PSA tests at all. Neither story addressed costs – a big issue given the evidence about unnecessary biopsies. This story focused on the study results, evaluating the value of tracking rising PSA levels. But it never dropped back to the big picture and never reminded men that NOT having a PSA test at all. The competing HealthDay story did, giving it a small but significant edge in completeness.
****
