Stop Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood

Congressman Mike Pence (IN-06) Offers Amendment to Stop Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood

Congressman Pence filed an amendment today to the appropriations bill that funds the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Title X Family Planning funding.  The amendment would stop HHS’ Family Planning funding (Title X) from going to Planned Parenthood. As you know, Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Family Planning money and is also the largest abortion provider inAmerica—this should not be.  Although Title X cannot be used to directly pay for abortions, government financial assistance is a vital tool in offsetting operational costs, therefore freeing up money to provide more abortions.

The amendment simply reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under Title X of the Public Health Services Act.” The Pence Amendment does not prevent any federal funds from going to family planning organizations, and it does not cut any family planning funding.  It simply ensures that Federal tax dollars are not used in any way by the largest abortion provider inAmerica.

Please circulate this information as widely as possible.   It has been filed with the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee. This Committee has the power to allow or prohibit a simple up-or-down vote on the Pence Amendment on the House floor.

If you would like to weigh in on this amendment, you can contact your Congressman as well as Democrat members of the Rules Committee at 202-225-9091 or at their offices. The links to each office are below: 

Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter (New York)

James P. McGovern (Massachusetts)

Alcee L. Hastings (Florida)

Doris O. Matsui (California)

Dennis Cardoza (California)

Michael Arcuri (New York)

Ed Perlmutter (Colorado)

Chellie Pingree (Maine)

Jared Polis (Colorado)

For background, attached is the text of the amendment, information on what Mr. Pence has done on this issue in the 110th and 111th Congress, and a one-pager on the Pence Amendment.

 
 
 AMENDMENT TO H.R.  llll ,  AS  REPORTED  

 

(LABOR , HHS, EDUCATION  APPROPRIATIONS )

OFFERED BY  MR . PENCE OF  I  NDIANA

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 

the following: 

1  SEC. 5 ll. None of the funds made available under 

 

2 this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any 

 

3 purpose under title X of the Public Health Services Act. 

 

  July 15, 2009 (3:11 p.m.)

 

  

Planned Parenthood – background on this Pence Initiative

 

At the start of the 111th Congress, on the day of the National March for Life, Congressman Pence reintroduced the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R.614). The bill seeks to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Service from providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. The bill excludes an abortion where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor or a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.

 
The bill has 82 cosponsors. The National Right to Life, Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum and others continue to urge their members to encourage their representatives to cosponsor the bill.

On July 19, 2007 Congressman Pence offered an amendment to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. The amendment stated that “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Services Act.” The vote on the amendment failed, 189-231. However, it was a very significant victory to garner 189 Members of Congress to go on record to deny annual, federal appropriations to Planned Parenthood – including sixteen Democrats. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, originally introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 4133) is a stand-alone bill in the spirit of the appropriations amendment.

During the FY09 appropriations season, the Democrats did not give an opportunity to offer amendments to individual appropriation bills, but rather passed CRs and ultimately combined Labor-HHS with other appropriations bills together in one FY09 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105). Congressman Pence supported Congressman Doug Lamborn’s effort to offer an amendment to the FY09 Omnibus in the Rules Committee to restrict funding for Planned Parenthood.

Congressman Pence joined Pete Olson and other Members in sending a letter to GAO requesting the amount of funding Planned Parenthood has received since 2003.

Congressman Pence continues to seek cosponsors to the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R.614) in order to solidify and expand the potential vote on an appropriations amendment to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

 

 

 Support the Pence Amendment to the Labor-H.H.S. Appropriations bill

 

HELP DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!  

The Pence Amendment would withhold annual appropriations of Health and Human Services’ Family Planning funds from Planned Parenthood. It would NOT reduce overall funds available for family planning under Title X.

Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Family Planning (Title X) money and is also the largest abortion provider in America:

In 2008, Planned Parenthood provided nearly 290,000 ABORTIONS.

They performed nearly 25,000 more abortions in 2008 than the year before.

Approximately one in every five abortions occurs at a Planned Parenthood facility.

From 2007 to 2008, Planned Parenthood received nearly $350 million of American taxpayer money.

 

Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation in multiple states including Indiana, California, Alabama, and Tennessee for allegations of fraudulent use of Title X funding. Many Planned Parenthood centers have also been caught violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws and even encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state reporting laws.

Family planning services that are necessary can be provided by groups that do not actively promote abortion and fight off every possible common-sense restriction on abortion. It is time to defund Planned Parenthood.

Partial Transcript from UCLA student investigation  

Planned Parenthood staff “If you’re 15, we have to report it. If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to.”  

Girl “Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different? So I could just say…”  

Planned Parenthood staff “You could say 16.”  

Girl “I could say 16.”  

Planned Parenthood staff “Yes.”  

Girl “Okay, yeah. So I would just write 16?”

Planned Parenthood staff “Well, just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”

 

In the past, the Pence Amendment has received support from:

National Right to Life

Family Research Counsel

Concerned Women for America

Eagle Forum

Focus on the Family

 

For more information on the amendment, or how your organization can help, please email Lindsey Craig with Rep. Pence at Lindsey.Craig@mail.house.gov.

 

New York Hospital Sued for Trying to Force Nurse to Help With Late-Term Abortion

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 22
, 2009

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) — A New York City hospital is the subject of a lawsuit after allegations that it attempted to force a nurse to participate in a late-term abortion. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit yesterday against Mount Sinai Hospital on behalf of a Catholic nurse who says she told the hospital about her objections.

Since 2004, officials at Mount Sinai Hospital knew that Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo had deeply-felt pro-life views and would not consent to assisting in an abortion.

That didn’t stop hospital officials from threatening her with disciplinary measures if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion.

Despite the fact that the patient was not in crisis at the time of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an “emergency.”

Federal laws prohibit hospitals that receive federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortion procedures under any circumstances but that apparently didn’t stop Mount Sinai Hospital from asking Cenzon-DeCarlo to join in the abortion of the 22-week-old unborn child.

ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman talked with LifeNews.com about the case.

“Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs,” he said. “Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience.”

“Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, but this nurse’s objections fell on deaf ears,” Bowman added.

“Chasing away workers from the health care field is disastrous health care policy,” Bowman continued. “An individual’s conscience is likely what brought them to the health care field. Denying or coercing their conscience will likely drive them right out.”

According to the lawsuit, the abortion was not an emergency situation.

“Category I” is the classification reserved for “patients requiring immediate surgical intervention for life or limb threatening conditions,” but the abortion in this case was classified as a “Category II.” That is a determination for surgeries needing to take place within six hours.

ADF says that means the hospital had no reason to insist upon Cenzon-DeCarlo’s assistance in the abortion in order to protect the patient.

Bowman said plenty of time existed to find a different nurse to assist, especially since evidence indicates that the patient’s condition did not rise even to a Category II. The lawsuit adds that Cenzon-DeCarlo observed no indications that the abortion was a medical emergency while in the operating room.

ADF attorneys filed the complaint in Cenzon-DeCarlo v. The Mount Sinai Hospital with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

They are also requesting a preliminary injunction that would order the hospital to honor Cenzon-DeCarlo’s religious objection against assisting in abortion and refrain from retaliation against her while the case moves forward.

CULTURE

The Patriot Post

Monday Brief
20 July 2009
Vol. 09 No. 29

CULTURE

“Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in [last] Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: ‘Frankly I had thought that at the time (Roe v. Wade) was decided,’ Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, ‘there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.’ The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had ‘too many of,’ you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations. Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe v. Wade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. … In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe v. Wade case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — a.k.a. ‘the abortion pill’ — to market as quickly as possible. ‘[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,’ Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. ‘It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. … Think of all the poverty, crime and misery … and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.’ Weddington offered a clue about who, in particular, he had in mind: ‘For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.’ Ah, right. Jesse Jackson. Got it. Unlike Bazelon, I for one would like to know whether Ginsburg believes there were — or are — some populations in need of shrinking through abortion and whether she thinks such considerations have any place at the Supreme Court. And while we’re at it, it would be interesting to know what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor thinks about such things.” –National Review editor Jonah Goldberg

Protecting Healthcare Freedom of Conscience: A National Tradition

Protecting Healthcare Freedom of Conscience: A National Tradition PDF
by Patrick Nagorski, 2009 AUL Fellow   
aul_logo.jpg Most Americans know that this year marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.  However, 2009 is also the 36th anniversary of important federal protections for healthcare providers:  the Church Amendments.  For more than three decades, these Amendments have provided a much-needed foundation for protecting the moral and ethical freedoms of healthcare providers.
Today, these protections are increasingly important as abortion proponents seek to weaken and, ultimately, remove common-sense abortion laws such as informed consent and parental involvement, as well as federal and state laws and regulations protecting healthcare providers who do not wish to participate in abortions or other conflict-ridden procedures.  Moreover, these protections are also implicated as Congress and the Administration debate a government take-over of America’s healthcare industry.

The Church Amendments were originally enacted to protect the freedom of healthcare providers to decline to participate in abortion and sterilization, two of the most conflict-ridden procedures in medicine.  The impact of these protections has been significant.  For example, they have helped to stem the tide of healthcare providers leaving the obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) specialty and, thus, have protected the lives of mothers and unborn and newly-born children who depend upon those providers for care.  Furthermore, these laws protect communities at large by ensuring that healthcare providers are generally available and that patients will be able to choose providers who share their values.
A Brief History of Federal Conscience Protections.
The Church Amendments were sponsored by Democrat Senator Frank Church in 1973 in direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade.  These four amendments focus upon a healthcare provider’s right to object on moral and religious grounds to being forced to take part in abortions and sterilizations.

The first Church amendment prevents courts and other public officials from requiring any person, institution, or organization to perform, assist in, or provide facilities or resources for abortions or sterilizations.  The second amendment forbids employment-related discrimination against doctors, nurses, physician’s assistants, and other medical providers if they refuse to participate in abortions or sterilizations based on moral or religious grounds.  The third amendment extends this protection against employment related discrimination to researchers and laboratory workers who are either working on a lawful Health and Human Services (HHS)-funded research project or who refuse to take part in such a project because of conscientious objections, protecting those working in emerging biotechnologies from being forced to participate in human cloning and destructive stem-cell research.  Finally, the fourth Church amendment prevents HHS from requiring a recipient of funding to participate in certain programs if the recipient objects on moral or religious grounds to the program.

At the federal level, the Church Amendments were followed by several amendments that expanded upon the originally-offered protections.  In 1996, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, also known as the “Coats Amendment,” extended conscience protection from federal, state, and local governments receiving federal funds to individuals who refuse to train in abortions or refer patients to an abortion provider.[1]  Later, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment extended the same protection to hospitals and insurance companies.[2]

  
Most recently, in December 2008, the outgoing Bush Administration enacted further HHS regulations that provided much-needed enforcement mechanisms for the previous protective legislation.  These new regulations provided for the federal defunding of any hospital or public agency that engaged in discriminatory behavior and mandated a short certification of compliance to be submitted to HHS by all entities receiving specified federal healthcare funds.

 
After the Church Amendments were passed, many states followed suit, creating legal protections for healthcare providers – both individual and institutional – who conscientiously object to providing abortions and other conflict-ridden services.  As of 2009, the only states that do not have any right of conscience protections are Alabama, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  Conversely, Mississippi is the only state that provides full right of conscience protection to all individuals, institutions, and healthcare payers.  The rest of the states provide varying degrees of protections for conscience.[3]

 
The Impact
The Church Amendments and other federal and state conscience protections have served as effective protection for the healthcare community and the people they serve.  For example, such protections have helped stem the tide of doctors leaving the OB/GYN specialty.

 
From 2000 to 2004, America experienced a large shortage in the number of medical students entering into OB/GYN residencies and a large number of experienced OB/GYN doctors started retiring or leaving the field for another medical specialty.   This exodus was due, in a large part, to the vast number of medical malpractice suits brought against OB/GYN doctors by opportunistic lawyers and bereaved parents whose children were born with birth defects.  These lawsuits caused a spike in the malpractice insurance rates for OB/GYNs to the point where they now pay the second highest premiums behind neurosurgeons.[5]

  
Abortion advocates have tried to exacerbate this shortage by demanding that healthcare providers perform abortions and sterilizations and prescribe or provide contraception even if the provider has a moral, ethical, or religious objection to such actions.  Unfortunately, abortion advocates have convinced a number of legislatures and courts to side with them and pass or uphold laws and ordinances requiring participation in such practices and providing few or meaningless exemptions to the mandates.[6]   The providers targeted by abortion advocates – men and women who have devoted years of their lives to extensive and challenging study so they could help others and who compassionately care for their patients out of the sheer strength and power of their convictions — have, understandably, responded to these demands by leaving their fields for more accommodating environments.  For the most part, abortion advocates readily accept this exodus and the shortage of qualified providers that results.  As one short-sighted governor responded to pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B, so-called “emergency contraception,” “Those with moral objections should find another profession.”[7]
The effect of this exodus has been to leave many women without OB/GYN care – especially women in rural areas and poor women.  In many states, pregnant women have to drive several hours to find a doctor or other trained professional who can provide their prenatal care and, ultimately, deliver their babies,[8]  if they can reasonably find one at all.
Abortion advocates, who routinely decry the declining number of abortion providers, vocally oppose rights of conscience.  However, the sheer irony of their position seems lost on them as they seek to expand access to abortion at the expense of individual providers’ rights.  In their lexicon, conscience and choice matter, but only the conscience and moral choice of the woman who wants an abortion.  Thus, her choice must be accommodated even to the detrimental of the provider and the community that he or she services.
Conscience protections help ensure that individuals and communities have qualified healthcare providers who share their values.  Healthcare providers work with patients to achieve positive and healthy outcomes.  To do so, a patient has to trust her provider.  She has to trust the provider to give her accurate and correct information.  She has to trust that the provider will do nothing to harm her or those she loves.  Frankly, many patients and their families simply do not feel comfortable receiving pre-natal and post-natal care and advice from an OB/GYN whom they know only an hour before was performing or assisting in an abortion.

The Future:
The future of conscience protections is uncertain.  Recently, the Obama Administration pledged to do away with the Bush Administration’s HHS regulations that effectively implemented the conscience protections encompassed in the Church Amendments and other federal laws.  Furthermore, abortion advocates are focused upon forcing providers to participate in abortions, to provide ready access to contraception, and to ignore their deepest-held beliefs to facilitate unfettered access to these conflict-ridden procedures.  Attacks upon conscience are likely to increase in number and intensity, eventually forcing providers to participate in objectionable procedures or leave the medical professions.  This would certainly result in a shortage of providers and a decrease in the quality of life for all Americans.

_______

by Patrick Nagorski, 2009 AUL Fellow    aul_logo.jpg Most Americans know that this year marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.  However, 2009 is also the 36th anniversary of important federal protections for healthcare providers:  the Church Amendments.  For more than three decades, these Amendments have provided a much-needed foundation for protecting the moral and ethical freedoms of healthcare providers.
Today, these protections are increasingly important as abortion proponents seek to weaken and, ultimately, remove common-sense abortion laws such as informed consent and parental involvement, as well as federal and state laws and regulations protecting healthcare providers who do not wish to participate in abortions or other conflict-ridden procedures.  Moreover, these protections are also implicated as Congress and the Administration debate a government take-over of America’s healthcare industry.

The Church Amendments were originally enacted to protect the freedom of healthcare providers to decline to participate in abortion and sterilization, two of the most conflict-ridden procedures in medicine.  The impact of these protections has been significant.  For example, they have helped to stem the tide of healthcare providers leaving the obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) specialty and, thus, have protected the lives of mothers and unborn and newly-born children who depend upon those providers for care.  Furthermore, these laws protect communities at large by ensuring that healthcare providers are generally available and that patients will be able to choose providers who share their values.
A Brief History of Federal Conscience Protections.
The Church Amendments were sponsored by Democrat Senator Frank Church in 1973 in direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade.  These four amendments focus upon a healthcare provider’s right to object on moral and religious grounds to being forced to take part in abortions and sterilizations.

The first Church amendment prevents courts and other public officials from requiring any person, institution, or organization to perform, assist in, or provide facilities or resources for abortions or sterilizations.  The second amendment forbids employment-related discrimination against doctors, nurses, physician’s assistants, and other medical providers if they refuse to participate in abortions or sterilizations based on moral or religious grounds.  The third amendment extends this protection against employment related discrimination to researchers and laboratory workers who are either working on a lawful Health and Human Services (HHS)-funded research project or who refuse to take part in such a project because of conscientious objections, protecting those working in emerging biotechnologies from being forced to participate in human cloning and destructive stem-cell research.  Finally, the fourth Church amendment prevents HHS from requiring a recipient of funding to participate in certain programs if the recipient objects on moral or religious grounds to the program.

At the federal level, the Church Amendments were followed by several amendments that expanded upon the originally-offered protections.  In 1996, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, also known as the “Coats Amendment,” extended conscience protection from federal, state, and local governments receiving federal funds to individuals who refuse to train in abortions or refer patients to an abortion provider.[1]  Later, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment extended the same protection to hospitals and insurance companies.[2]

  
Most recently, in December 2008, the outgoing Bush Administration enacted further HHS regulations that provided much-needed enforcement mechanisms for the previous protective legislation.  These new regulations provided for the federal defunding of any hospital or public agency that engaged in discriminatory behavior and mandated a short certification of compliance to be submitted to HHS by all entities receiving specified federal healthcare funds.

 
After the Church Amendments were passed, many states followed suit, creating legal protections for healthcare providers – both individual and institutional – who conscientiously object to providing abortions and other conflict-ridden services.  As of 2009, the only states that do not have any right of conscience protections are Alabama, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  Conversely, Mississippi is the only state that provides full right of conscience protection to all individuals, institutions, and healthcare payers.  The rest of the states provide varying degrees of protections for conscience.[3]

 
The Impact
The Church Amendments and other federal and state conscience protections have served as effective protection for the healthcare community and the people they serve.  For example, such protections have helped stem the tide of doctors leaving the OB/GYN specialty.

 
From 2000 to 2004, America experienced a large shortage in the number of medical students entering into OB/GYN residencies and a large number of experienced OB/GYN doctors started retiring or leaving the field for another medical specialty.   This exodus was due, in a large part, to the vast number of medical malpractice suits brought against OB/GYN doctors by opportunistic lawyers and bereaved parents whose children were born with birth defects.  These lawsuits caused a spike in the malpractice insurance rates for OB/GYNs to the point where they now pay the second highest premiums behind neurosurgeons.[5]

  
Abortion advocates have tried to exacerbate this shortage by demanding that healthcare providers perform abortions and sterilizations and prescribe or provide contraception even if the provider has a moral, ethical, or religious objection to such actions.  Unfortunately, abortion advocates have convinced a number of legislatures and courts to side with them and pass or uphold laws and ordinances requiring participation in such practices and providing few or meaningless exemptions to the mandates.[6]   The providers targeted by abortion advocates – men and women who have devoted years of their lives to extensive and challenging study so they could help others and who compassionately care for their patients out of the sheer strength and power of their convictions — have, understandably, responded to these demands by leaving their fields for more accommodating environments.  For the most part, abortion advocates readily accept this exodus and the shortage of qualified providers that results.  As one short-sighted governor responded to pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B, so-called “emergency contraception,” “Those with moral objections should find another profession.”[7]
The effect of this exodus has been to leave many women without OB/GYN care – especially women in rural areas and poor women.  In many states, pregnant women have to drive several hours to find a doctor or other trained professional who can provide their prenatal care and, ultimately, deliver their babies,[8]  if they can reasonably find one at all.
Abortion advocates, who routinely decry the declining number of abortion providers, vocally oppose rights of conscience.  However, the sheer irony of their position seems lost on them as they seek to expand access to abortion at the expense of individual providers’ rights.  In their lexicon, conscience and choice matter, but only the conscience and moral choice of the woman who wants an abortion.  Thus, her choice must be accommodated even to the detrimental of the provider and the community that he or she services.
Conscience protections help ensure that individuals and communities have qualified healthcare providers who share their values.  Healthcare providers work with patients to achieve positive and healthy outcomes.  To do so, a patient has to trust her provider.  She has to trust the provider to give her accurate and correct information.  She has to trust that the provider will do nothing to harm her or those she loves.  Frankly, many patients and their families simply do not feel comfortable receiving pre-natal and post-natal care and advice from an OB/GYN whom they know only an hour before was performing or assisting in an abortion.

The Future:
The future of conscience protections is uncertain.  Recently, the Obama Administration pledged to do away with the Bush Administration’s HHS regulations that effectively implemented the conscience protections encompassed in the Church Amendments and other federal laws.  Furthermore, abortion advocates are focused upon forcing providers to participate in abortions, to provide ready access to contraception, and to ignore their deepest-held beliefs to facilitate unfettered access to these conflict-ridden procedures.  Attacks upon conscience are likely to increase in number and intensity, eventually forcing providers to participate in objectionable procedures or leave the medical professions.  This would certainly result in a shortage of providers and a decrease in the quality of life for all Americans.

_______