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.

At a hearing in Miami federal court, U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz said she expects more concrete action and fewer promises from Carnival. “We’re not there. And we should be,” Seitz said. The cruise company is about halfway through a five-year probation sentence for a 2016 criminal pollution conviction. Chairman Micky Arison, who also owns the Miami Heat, and CEO Arnold Donald both insisted the company is doing a lot, but that it takes time to implement real changes at a company with 120,000 employees, more than 100 cruise ships and nine different brands. “We strive to be perfect,” Arison told the judge. “We won’t ever be perfect, but we are going to work toward that.” Earlier this year, Carnival admitted violating probation from the 2016 criminal case as its ships continued to cause environmental harm around the world since then. It was hit with a $20 million penalty, on top of a $40 million fine imposed in the original case. The environmental problems included allowing plastic to be discharged along with food into water; dumping “gray water” in prohibited places such as Alaska’s Glacier Bay National Park; and permitting a corporate culture to persist that does not value compliance with environmental laws. Richard Udell, a Justice Department lawyer specializing in environmental enforcement, cited the recent inability of Carnival to detail what happens to the estimated 50 million plastic bottles used on its ships each year. Carnival, he said, simply told the government they don’t keep track of that because they are all supposedly recycled at some of its 700 destinations. Prosecutors want to know if that is really the case, or if often the bottles simply get dumped in the ocean or in landfills by other entities where Carnival ships dock. “If we don’t look, we won’t know, and if we don’t know, we don’t care,” Udell said. “We hope that we can get past this.” Carnival outlined many steps it is taking to phase out use of plastics on its ships, including the bottles, and that it would look deeper into the recycling issue. And Donald, the CEO, said the company’s leadership is making every effort to value environmental compliance just as much as ship safety and guest hospitality. “Compliance, environmental protection, safety _ it’s the first thing,” Donald said. “Without it, we don’t have a business.” Another status hearing is set for December. _____ Follow Curt Anderson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Miamicurt
Judge: Carnival must fix ocean pollution issues faster.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s top medical adviser, Chris Whitty, said on Wednesday that data on the extent and impact of the outbreak was encouraging but that it was too soon to focus the next phase of the government’s response. “Our view is that it is probably reaching the peak overall,” Whitty said at the government’s daily news conference. “We are not yet at the point where we can say confidently and safely ‘this is now past the peak and we can start thinking very much now about the next phases.’”  So far, more than 12,868 people with COVID-19 have died in British hospitals, though new official data indicates the true death toll could be much larger. Whitty said the daily number of deaths could rise in coming days due reporting lags. The government is widely expected to announce on Thursday that it will extend the most far-reaching restrictions on daily life in Britain’s peacetime history. But Johnson had initially refrained from approving the stringent controls that other European leaders imposed. He later closed down the country when projections showed a quarter of a million people could die in the United Kingdom. The leader of the opposition Labour Party, Keir Starmer, said the prime minister had initially been too slow to impose the lockdown, signalling the political row that is likely to dominate the national discourse for years to come. “I am worried that it looks like we are going to have a higher death rate than any other country in Europe and there will obviously be searching questions about why that has happened,” Starmer told LBC radio. “I did think the government was going too slowly,” Starmer said. “We will have to look back in due course.”  A widespread lockdown came into force on March 23. Prior to that the Conservative government had urged people not to make unnecessary journeys and to cut down on socialising, rather than closing establishments down. But Britons had still packed pubs and restaurants, and even the Cheltenham horse-racing event went ahead, bringing together thousands of punters. Johnson even joked about shaking hands with medical staff during a hospital visit. Starmer, a 57-year-old former prosecutor who won the Labour Party leadership earlier this month, also called on the government to publish its exit strategy from lockdown restrictions. Foreign minister Dominic Raab, who is deputising for Johnson while he recovers from COVID-19, will lead a cabinet meeting on Thursday morning, and in the afternoon chair an emergency response committee meeting to decide on extending the lockdown   The United Kingdom’s hospital death toll from COVID-19 rose by 761 to 12,868 as of 1600 on April 14, the health ministry said. The toll had gone up by 778 the previous day. The official British death toll is the fifth-highest globally after the United States, Italy, Spain and France. The United States has reported more than 28,000 deaths while Italy has reported more than 21,000. Several European countries have announced plans or already begun to relax restrictions, balancing the risk of reversing gains against further damage to battered economies. Starmer said Labour supported extending the measures in Britain but that to “maintain morale and hope”, the public needed to have an idea of what is coming next. Government officials have defended their course of action regarding the start of the lockdown and said it would be a mistake to talk about how to end the lockdown before they were confident the peak had been reached. Amid the doom, though, there were rays of hope. A 106-year-old woman, thought to be the oldest patient in Britain to beat the novel coronavirus, was discharged from hospital. Connie Titchen, born in 1913, had battled suspected pneumonia and COVID-19. A 99-year-old war veteran, Tom Moore, has raised more than 8 million pounds ($10.03 million) for Britain’s health service with a walk around his garden.
UK virus outbreak 'probably' peaking, but too soon to ease lockdown.

"The U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire has been awash in claims about abortion and women’s health issues in recent days. One claim by incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen caught our eye. Shaheen is facing a challenge from former Republican Sen. Scott Brown. In a news release from her campaign, Shaheen said: ""I have always supported a woman’s right to choose because I know women should be making health care decisions in consultation with their doctors and their families, not their employer. Scott Brown’s record is clear: When it counts, he doesn’t stand up for women’s reproductive rights and economic security. He co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control or even mammograms. New Hampshire women can’t trust Scott Brown, and his record is move evidence that he is wrong for New Hampshire."" We noticed two claims that are related, but distinct enough to analyze separately. First, would the legislation in question have allowed employers deny women coverage for birth control? And would it have allowed employers to deny coverage for mammograms? We’ll look at the birth control claim here, and mammograms in a separate fact-check. It turns out the two issues differ a good bit. In a different Shaheen campaign news release, the campaign explained its sourcing by writing, ""FACT: Scott Brown both co-sponsored and voted for the Blunt Amendment that would let employers deny women access to a range of healthcare services, including contraception and coverage for mammograms."" The amendment in question was proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. It was tabled -- that is, dispensed with -- by a 51-48 vote in which a simple majority was required. Among those who voted ""nay"" -- that is, those who wanted to keep it under consideration -- was Brown, then representing Massachusetts in the Senate. He also co-sponsored a predecessor measure, S.1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. So Shaheen’s camp is correct that Brown acted in support of this measure. But what did the amendment say? It acted to widen the scope of acceptable actions for opting out of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on religious or moral grounds. It focuses on mandates within the law for preventive services, called the ""essential health benefits package."" Specifically, the amendment said employers cannot be required to cover ""specific items or services"" that are ""contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan."" We agree with the Shaheen campaign that the provision is drawn broadly. While it’s not targeted at abortion or birth control per se, it is so expansively written that there’s little doubt it could be invoked on behalf of those who oppose abortion and certain types of birth control. As we explained in our other fact check, we find no evidence that anyone has expressed a religious or moral objection to mammograms. But the case that the Blunt Amendment would have affected access to birth control is stronger. Some opponents of abortion have supported opt-out rights for employers who oppose certain types of birth control that they say work like abortifacients. In fact, this was the issue at the heart of the closely watched 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. In that case, a 5-4 majority ruled that a closely held, private corporation, such as the craft retailer Hobby Lobby, could decline on religious grounds to pay for certain kinds of contraceptives otherwise mandated in employee health coverage by the Affordable Care Act. The only quibble we have with the phrasing of Shaheen’s claim is that the Blunt Amendment didn’t single out birth control, which is the impression one could easily get from her statement. But since the amendment was written so broadly -- and since birth control has long been at issue for religious or moral reasons -- we don’t see this as a significant problem. Our ruling Shaheen said Brown ""co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control."" The amendment, which Brown supported, was written loosely enough to allow a religious-conscience opt-out for birth control -- an issue about which there has been a longstanding policy debate on religious and moral grounds."

"Jeanne Shaheen Says Scott Brown ""co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control."

