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.

"In a Dec. 15, 2015, interview with actress and writer Lena Dunham in Lenny Letter, Dunham’s feminist email newsletter, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards discussed testifying to Congress, running Planned Parenthood in the wake of the shooting in Colorado Springs and her experiences fighting for reproductive rights. Their conversation came as Republicans in Congress continued to seek an end to any federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the same year videos released by an anti-abortion group purported to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the use of fetal tissue in medical research. Federal funding to Planned Parenthood does not go toward abortions and is instead used to fund the organization’s other services, such as sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, mammograms and contraceptive services. In the interview, Dunham asked Richards about changes in the politics of abortion rights over Richards’ nine years as president of Planned Parenthood. Richards, eldest daughter to Ann Richards, the late former Texas governor, replied by mentioning the partisan realignment of legislatures in 2010, which mostly benefited Republicans, and the Republican Party’s national shift to the right. ""But if you look at the people in this country,"" Richards continued, ""they are supportive of safe and legal abortion. They support Planned Parenthood. I was just looking at the recent numbers. More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress."" Those numbers, Richards said, show that ""just because the politics are going one way, it’s not because that’s where the people are."" Where the people are is a pretty broad assessment. We focused on whether Richards was right about the relative popularity of Planned Parenthood and unpopularity of Congress. Congressional approval Congress hasn’t been widely admired very often. As we noted in a December 2014 story, the Gallup polling organization started inquiring into attitudes toward Congress in 1974. Its results show Congress never proving very popular, except after the 9/11 attacks, when there was a spike to 84 percent of respondents approving of the job Congress was doing. The most recent Gallup poll available at the time of Richards’ interview placed public approval of Congress at 11 percent. (After that, according to Gallup, support edged up to 13 percent.) The poll, conducted from Nov. 4 to Nov. 8, 2015, asked respondents, ""Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"" A whopping 86 percent disapproved, and 3 percent had no opinion. Eleven percent approval was a low point for Congress in 2015. Twenty percent approved of Congress in February 2015, and 19 percent approved in May 2015. Approval of Congress declined starting in May 2015, reaching 14 percent in August 2015 and 13 percent in October 2015, before hitting 11 percent the next month. A poll released Dec. 3, 1015, by Rasmussen Reports placed public support for Congress even lower: 9 percent of likely voters said Congress was doing a good or excellent job according to Rasmussen’s methodology, which in 2015 often returned lower favorability numbers than Gallup’s polls. Support for Planned Parenthood funding In reviewing the other end of Richards’ claim, we recognized two ways to gauge ""support"" for Planned Parenthood. Polls in 2015 inquired into U.S. attitudes about ending federal aid to the group and about general feelings about the group which, we’ve noted, provides family planning and other women’s health services, including abortions. Planned Parenthood, asked for the factual backup to Richards’ statement, pointed us to several surveys showing support for the group itself and support for its funding as well as opposition to shutting down the government rather than continuing its aid. An Oct. 14, 2015, PolitiFact Wisconsin fact-check found True this September 2015 claim by Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore: ""60 percent of all Americans do not want to see Planned Parenthood defunded."" Three September 2015 surveys--similarly cited by Planned Parenthood when we made our recent inquiry--seemed to back Moore’s claim: • A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of adults asked: ""Would you favor or oppose totally eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventative health services?"" Sixty-one percent of respondents opposed eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood. • A USA Today/Suffolk University poll of likely voters asked: ""Do you think all federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be cut off: yes or no?"" Sixty-five percent said no. A similar poll conducted in December 2015 saw that number down slightly at 58 percent. • A Pew Research Center poll tied Planned Parenthood funding to a possible government shutdown in its question but got a similar result: 60 percent of adults said any federal budget agreement to avert a government shutdown would have to maintain funding for Planned Parenthood. Another survey, however, did find support for eliminating Planned Parenthood’s funding. Released Dec. 2, 2015, the poll from the Robert Morris University Polling Institute found that 53.3 percent of respondents supported defunding Planned Parenthood, and 31.5 percent opposed it. The RMU polling institute speculated in its news release that the starkly different response stemmed from the wording used in the polling question. The RMU poll asked respondents: ""Congressional Republicans favor shifting Planned Parenthood federal funds to community clinics that perform the same services, but do not perform abortions. Would you say you support or oppose this plan?"" Other polls generally asked a version of the question, ""Do you think all federal funding to Planned Parenthood should be cut off?"" without mentioning clinics, services, or abortions. The RMU poll stood alone in finding support for defunding Planned Parenthood. Support for Planned Parenthood Survey questions asking directly about support for Planned Parenthood in itself — rather than its government backing — had positive responses, at lower numbers than the 60 percent mark. These polls all asked a version of the simple question, ""Is your opinion of Planned Parenthood favorable or unfavorable?"" An Oct. 6, 2015, poll by Rasmussen Reports, which Planned Parenthood also shared with us, found that 53 percent of likely voters had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, with a margin of error of 3 percent. A Bloomberg National Poll in November 2015 got 50 percent favorability for the organization, with the same margin of error. A Sept. 28, 2015, poll from Quinnipiac University delivered lower numbers: it found that 44 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, compared with 39 percent unfavorable, with a 2.5 percent margin of error. The lowest favorability ratings came from a September 2015 CBS News/New York Times poll, which found 40 percent in favor and 27 percent not in favor. Thirty-one percent in that poll said they did not know enough to answer the question. By email, Planned Parenthood media relations assistant Claire Barnes pointed to an Aug. 5, 2015, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that put Planned Parenthood’s favorability ratings in context. The poll found Planned Parenthood’s 45 percent favorability rating was higher than favorability ratings for the NRA, the Supreme Court, Bernie Sanders, President Barack Obama and several Republican presidential candidates included in the survey. Our ruling Richards said that more than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress. Richards had a bead on Congress, which was wallowing in 11-percent approval territory in November 2015. In addition, most polls suggested more than 60 percent of Americans opposed the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Still, there’s clarification missing. While more people look favorably on Planned Parenthood than not, polls indicated, that was the opinion of 40 percent to 53 percent of Americans--not more than 60 percent. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood and only 11 percent approve of Congress.

One in five people are drinking too much alcohol. 21% of adults aged 16+ in England reported to an NHS Digital survey that they usually drank more than the recommended 14 units of alcohol a week in 2017. Alcohol deaths in England at record high after 6% rise in a year. Correct, in terms of deaths that are a direct result of alcohol misuse. However, the number of alcohol-specific deaths per 100,000 people has remained virtually the same over the last ten years. Claim 1 of 3
Alcohol deaths in England at record high after 6% rise in a year.

On 10 March 2019, The New York Times reported that the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) was considering leveraging people’s social media accounts to determine the veracity of their disability claims: The Trump administration has been quietly working on a proposal to use social media like Facebook and Twitter to help identify people who claim Social Security disability benefits without actually being disabled. If, for example, a person claimed benefits because of a back injury but was shown playing golf in a photograph posted on Facebook, that could be used as evidence that the injury was not disabling. The story resulted in spin-offs from various publications including Forbes (“How a Trump Proposal Could Reduce ‘Happy’ Disabled People”) and the Daily Kos website (“Trump administration seeks to monitor social media of disability recipients, including vets”). As with any story that sounds far-fetched, Snopes.com readers queried whether the story could be believed. It is true that SSA proposed using social media posts in making disability determinations. The proposal was put forward in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, noting (on page 26) that the agency wants to take a more proactive approach in looking at people’s posts on the platforms. Whereas social media posts can currently come into play in fraud investigations, the practice could be expanded, per the budget request: In FY 2018, we studied strategies of our private sector counterparts and other government agencies on how social media networks can be used to evaluate disability allegations. Currently, agency adjudicators use social media information to evaluate a beneficiary’s symptoms when there is a CDI unit’s Report of Investigation that contains social media data corroborating the investigative findings. In FY 2019, we are evaluating how social media could be used by disability adjudicators in assessing the consistency and supportability of evidence in a claimant’s case file. (CDI refers to the Cooperative Disability Investigations unit and is responsible for working in conjunction with various agencies to “investigate suspicious disability claims under SSA’s Title II and Title XVI disability Programs.”) In a statement emailed to Snopes, agency spokesman Darren Lutz said SSA is studying strategies of “other agencies and private entities to determine how social media might be used to evaluate disability applications” but declined to provide further details. Although neither The Times nor Forbes articles mentioned veterans, the Daily Kos website cited a tweet posted by writer Dylan Park that introduced the idea that veterans could also be targets of such investigations. The Trump administration is proposing to monitor the social media accounts of veterans, and if the veterans are “too happy” their disability pensions for PTSD will be reduced. What a fucking joke. https://t.co/dKcCK57OkS — Dylan (@dyllyp) April 14, 2019  In that same post, Park recounts having benefits cut for telling a medical professional he was feeling “fine” in one visit, despite having post-traumatic stress disorder from his experiences on the battlefield. I had to appeal my case in front of a board. I whipped out a photo of the head of a suicide bomber who jumped on a humvee at my checkpoint and said “This is something I think about at least once a day. Fuck all of you.” They reversed that shit so fast. — Dylan (@dyllyp) April 14, 2019  The SSA and Veterans Administration (VA) run separate benefits programs for adjudicating and dispersing disability benefits. But the two programs can overlap, meaning a disabled veteran can receive benefits from both agencies simultaneously. We sent questions to SSA asking how investigating social media posts could impact veterans receiving SSA disability payments but got no answer by the time of publication. The SSA hasn’t yet offered specifics on how it might use social media in evaluating disability claims. But writing for Forbes, Imani Barbarin, who has cerebral palsy and is an advocate for the disabled community, observed that the policy could backfire by mistakenly rejecting people from the program. She noted that such a proposal demonstrates a “fundamental misunderstanding” of disability and how a social media post made by a disabled person could easily be misconstrued. “Disabled people don’t all function in the same way, and disability is not a set of stereotypes like taking selfies staring longingly at the world. They live lives while managing their energy for the activities they can handle and trying to make those they cannot more accessible,” Barbarin wrote. “Additionally, studies have shown that a majority of social media users show only the good in their lives, not the hardships or difficulties.” Perusing people’s social media posts is already a common practice by private insurance companies determining coverage or investigating claims. But the prospect of the U.S. government adopting the practice to evaluate applications has raised a number of concerns among privacy advocates and advocates for the disabled community, as CBS News reported: [Disability attorney Paul] Young said social media reviews can exacerbate a claims process that’s already time-consuming for applicants who are out of work, taking anywhere from one year to three years. The SSA has a very strict definition of disability by law: Claimants must not be able to do work because of their medical condition, and the condition must have lasted or be expected to last at least one year — or be expected to result in death. Social media posts taken out of context can put applicants on the defensive before they even reach a hearing, Young said. Images and videos also have technical problems: A user may have posted a throwback photo to when she was water-skiing in 2016, but the publish date may make it appear the photo is from after she filed her claim. In a world with increasingly sophisticated image-altering technology, it’s also getting ever more difficult to authenticate the veracity of a photo.

The Trump Administration is seeking to monitor social media posts of disability recipients.

