Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.

[Q]: Connecticut Supreme Court saves teen's life. The Justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court took over parenting duties of a cancer-stricken teenager Thursday . In so doing, they surely saved her life . At the conclusion of oral arguments, the high court took just minutes to determined that state officials were right to take custody of the girl known in court documents only as "Cassandra C " and force her to undergo life-saving treatment . No thanks to her mother . Jackie Fortin had encouraged her 17-year-old daughter's desire to refuse chemotherapy . She naively pronounced,"my daughter is not going to die." As if wishing it could make it come true . Sadly, both mother and daughter were wrong . They were in denial . If they got their way , Cassandra would die . It was the equivalent of suicide . I wonder how her mother would feel then? Cassandra has advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma which attacks and consumes the body's immune system . Her doctors say chemotherapy treatment will give her an 85 percent chance of survival . Excellent odds . Yet, the teenager refused, saying she did not want to "poison" her body with chemo . How does that make sense to a rational mind? Let's employ Cassandra's own tortured terminology and logic . Does she not realize that her body is already being poisoned by the rapidly multiplying cancer in her lymph system? Untreated , it will quickly spread until it kills her . That is what her doctors predict . Reliable statistics from the National Cancer Institute prove they are right . Chemotherapy can save her . Chemicals are introduced into the diseased body to attack the cancer cells . You can call it a "poison" if you want , but a more accurate term is curative . Yes, the chemicals also harm other normal cells . To that extent they are a poison, of sorts, producing painful and unpleasant side effects . But once the body recovers and is free of the cancer cells, the chemicals are gone . Thus , if chemo is a poison , it is not normally a lethal one . The cancer which is ravaging Cassandra's body surely is . If , by using the term "poison," Cassandra means she does not want to endure the side effects of nausea, vomiting, hair loss and exhaustion cond , she is being myopic . The final stages of untreated lymphoma are far more extreme and painful . Cassandra's disdain for the treatment that will likely save her young life is, perhaps, the best evidence that she was not mature enough to make a wise and informed decision on her own . But then again, neither was her mother . Which is why the state of Connecticut stepped in . As an adult, Fortin, is presumed to be competent under the law to make decisions for her daughter, a minor . However ,  Fortin's aberrant judgment in rejecting the treatment that could save Cassandra's life and her concomitant belief that her daughter would somehow, miraculously, not succumb to an insidious, fatal illness... called that legal presumption into serious doubt . There is also evidence that Fortin ignored obvious signs of her daughter's malignant disease at an early stage, failed to seek prompt and continuing medical attention, and has been unduly influencing Cassandra's negative reaction to treatment . The court records suggest a domineering mother with an abiding distrust of medicine, and a daughter fearful of running afoul of her mother's wishes . To deny a child beneficial, life-sustaining treatment constitutes child neglect . States have a duty to protect children from abuse and neglect . Courts rarely hesitate to step in where a child's life is in danger . Thus , the state was correct to intervene and the lower court was equally correct to remove the mother as unfit . Fortunately, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed and did the right thing . Time is on Cassandra's side . The fact that she is 9 months away from turning 18 years old may, in the end, have saved her life . It gave the high court an excuse to adhere strictly to the law as it relates to protecting minors . Those 9 months will also give doctors valuable time to complete her therapy and give her a new chance at a full and happy life . As for her mother, Jackie Fortin? She will have ample time to wrestle with her conscience .
[A]: The Justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court took over parenting duties of a cancer-stricken teenager Thursday In so doing, they surely saved her life


[Q]: New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd self-destructs. Editor's note: The following column first appeared in the Washington Times . The now-consumed 2014 has been perfectly described by some commentators as the year when facts died . Politicians, mobs in the streets and their willing accomplices in the media swamped us with lies, obfuscations or riots manifest because, as author Thomas Sowell has noted,"What matters today is how well you can concoct a story that fits people's preconceptions and arouses their emotions. Politicians like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, professional demagogues like Al Sharpton and innumerable irresponsible people in the media have shown that they have great talent in promoting a lynch mob." None of this is unique to 2014, however, nor is the aptitude to stir up a lynch mob the exclusive purview of politicians . It has been both the vocation and avocation of liberal media darlings for a very long time . In 2014, with almost perfect timing and illustrating the farce of the left, a liberal favorite -- New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd -- was exposed by the Sony email hack for just how much hypocrisy and contrivance rules her world . An Internet search of Ms  Dowd brings up a whole host of approving profiles and interviews over the years, with a particular column considered by her sycophants as one of her greatest accomplishments: the "takedown" of former New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller . Ms  Dowd provided what many thought was the coup de grace against Ms  Miller when she wrote that column about her then-colleague at The New York Times, excoriating Ms  Miller for her coverage of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction WMD) leading up to the Iraq war . Ms  Miller, you see, had done the unthinkable . She reported what her investigation found on the issue , which also happened to be what the Bush administration and scores of other governments had also determined : Saddam was pursuing a WMD program and an untold number of those weapons were developed and undeclared . As her fellow liberal colleagues piled on Ms  Miller , Ms  Dowd's column, dripping in ridicule and moral authority, condemned the reporter for being a "stenographer" for the Bush administration . Ms  Dowd complained Ms  Miller's work"fit too perfectly" with what the White House had been asserting about WMD . In other words ,  Ms  Dowd accused Ms  Miller of being too close to her subject , essentially of colluding with others, of selling out to make someone happy or to further a shared agenda . It was absurd and petty . But what we didn't know at the time was that it was also a perfect case of projection . In emails revealed late last year by the Sony Pictures hack, Ms  Dowd, The New York Times' supposed paragon of journalistic ethics, was discovered to have assured a Sony executive that she would be sure to make her "look great" in a column, and appeared to promise to show the column to the executive's husband, a former Times reporter, beforehand . After the column ran, more emails were exchanged, with Ms  Dowd telling the executive,"I hope you're happy... let's do another." After her subject declared the columnist her "favorite person," Ms  Dowd gushed,"You're mine! You're amazing." Ms  Dowd has since denied that she provided the column in advance . That's possible . So was it a draft that was provided? And by someone other than herself? For those who might suggest this mistake of Ms Dowd's was a one-off, issues of character inform everything we do . Hypocrisy doesn't sneak up on you once . It's part of how you relate to the world . Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times from 2003 to 2011, confirmed to the left-wing blog Media Matters in 2011 that the newspaper's treatment of Ms  Miller was due to politics and to assuage the leftist critics . Mr  Keller confessed,"I let a year go by when a lot of people, particularly people on the left, became disenchanted with the Times because they saw it as having been cheerleaders for the war. I think I could have saved the paper a lot of trouble and some damage by dealing with [Ms  Miller's reporting] much sooner." Facts do tend to be pesky things, as Ms  Dowd and the rest of The New York Times crew found in 2014 . After years of morally superior, self-righteous preening, they had a problem : Judith Miller was proven right about WMD in Iraq . Revealed in a 2010 Wikileaks document dump, The New York Times finally wrote a 10,000 word story on "abandoned chemical weapons" in Iraq as it became evident our troops continued to be injured by them and their existence could no longer be denied . The New York Sun suggested the Times' story be viewed as "journalism's longest correction," and was "designed to try to extricate the Gray Lady from all these charges about how President George W  Bush and his camarilla lied about the danger of Saddam's chemical arsenal . It turns out that Iraq was littered with thousands of shells containing poison gas, like Sarin." In that 2005 column attacking Ms  Miller, Ms  Dowd dramatically warned her readers if Ms  Miller remained a reporter at The New York Times, the newspaper itself would be at risk . Ten years later, now with the Times on the verge of collapse, forced retirements, layoffs and plunging ad revenue, the facts are teaching a lesson in irony and hypocrisy to Ms  Dowd and everyone else at the Times who jettisoned the truth to soothe jealousies and pander to politics .
[A]: The now-consumed 2014 has been perfectly described by some commentators as the year when facts died


[Q]: Iran talks: Moving beyond 'worn out' policies. The stakes are high in the latest round of nuclear talks starting today in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 at the deputy foreign minister level . Over the past week, US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Jawed Zarif have held long conversations in Geneva and Paris, lasting over seven hours . Both realise that more flexibility is required to avoid the break up of the talks . British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke on the subject with US President Barack Obama and the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the EU foreign policy chief all held talks separately with Zarif . Yet if both sides continue to stick to their strict red lines it is questionable whether this round of talks will be any better than the last . It may be time for more flexible red lines if failure is to be avoided . "Chances are less than 50/50," admits Obama, in a joint press conference with the British Prime Minister David Cameron when both leaders spent well over half of their press conferences spelling out what was at stake if a deal with Iran was not finalised by the June deadline . Obama explained how"the most successful, the most effective sanctions regime" had eventually led Iran to the negotiating table . He said:"If we can get a verifiable deal with the necessary assurances then that would be the best deal." Yet Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson said sanctions are a "worn out policy" and asked the White House to adopt a "logical approach" . Iran would not accept a deal that constrains its enrichment programme without the West reducing sanctions . "Now we have come to a stage in the talks that requires the other side to take its decision to enable us to move forward," said Zarif when arriving in Geneva . "There needs to be some new and comprehensive proposals." The latest directive from Iran's leader, Ali Khamenei is that officials "should take away the weapon of sanctions from the enemy" . "Even one step in retreat will lead to enemy's advance," he said . He is angered that "Americans say flagrantly that even if Iran withdraws in the nuclear issue, the sanctions will not be lifted all together and at once" . Khamenei is referring to the main point of contention; the issue of the period of curbing Iran's enrichment programme in exchange for the lifting of four sets of sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN, EU and the US . The US wants the curbing of sanctions to be in a period covering well over 10 years, closer to 20 or in "double digits" as US administration officials put it . This is to ensure Iran's breakout time is prolonged . Iran sees this as an attempt for forcing it to forego what it calls its peaceful enrichment programme . It does not accept this long period of curbing its enrichment programme without the reciprocal reduction in sanctions . It is believed that the Iranian leader could be persuaded with anything below 10 years or a timeframe in a "single digit" . "Iran is deeply suspicious of the US and the West," said Obama . Mutual distrust is at the core of the failure of the unwillingness on both side to be flexible . Khamenei still refers to the US as"enemy" and the US continues to refuse to lift sanctions fearing Iran's return to enrichment . It is not clear if western trust has taken another blow from reports that Syria is still trying to make nuclear weapons and has been getting help from Iran and North Korea . The two sides would not be able to reach an agreement especially when the US Congress is pushing daily for imposing further sanctions in support of the Israeli lobby . Republican Senator Mark Kirk and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez are finalising a bill for tougher sanctions . Senator Bob Corker is also working on a bill to ensure the congress must approve any final deal with Iran . Iran hardliners answer sanctions with the threat of enrichment . "Further sanctions will result in a vote in the Iranian parliament for continuing enrichment," said Ali Larijani, the head of Judiciary . "The enemies wanted to deprive Iran from its right to the nuclear technology and even resorted to military threats to this end." Hardline members of parliament are proposing a bill to increase the uranium enrichment programme to 60 percent . "I am not, repeat, not suggesting that we are in immediate war footing, should negotiations with Iran fail," said Obama . At the same time he made it clear he would veto any congressional attempts at new sanctions against Iran . "Hold your fire," he told the congress . "We must not jeopardise the chance" to get a verifiable deal with Iran . Although Republicans now hold a 54-46 seat majority in the Senate , it is not clear whether there would manage to get the 67 votes required in the Senate to override an Obama veto of any Iran legislation . In intensive meetings with his European counterpart, Zarif has no doubt conveyed to them that if there is no easing of the sanctions there would be little he could do back home . He has asked for "serious and brave decisions" in order to move forward . The world has heard expressions of commitments and hope from Iran and the countries P5+1 for over a year now . Yet those brave words must be coupled either with more flexibility as recommended by experts or coupled alternatively with new ideas, new methods and possibly new redlines . There is still time and several avenues are still open . For example there could be more direct involvement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in the form of a representative, a high calibre UN negotiator , who could add momentum to the talks and create synergy . Otherwise it is difficult to see how the negotiators can come up with a solution if they have not managed it in the past 14 months .
[A]:
The stakes are high in the latest round of nuclear talks starting today in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 at the deputy foreign minister level


