Latest news with #EqualityAct
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrats, major medical groups denounce Supreme Court's gender-affirming care ruling
Democratic leaders and professional medical organizations on Wednesday denounced the Supreme Court's ruling that upheld a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, a decision the high court delivered along ideological lines and one that stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country. The high court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from the conservative majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said Wednesday's decision 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' 'Once again, politicians and judges are inserting themselves in exam rooms,' Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said Wednesday on the social platform X. 'This ruling undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country.' Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), whose grandson is transgender, said the court's decision may force families living in Tennessee and other states with restrictions on gender-affirming care for youth to leave their homes to 'ensure their kids can access medically necessary care.' Including Tennessee, 25 Republican-led states since 2021 have passed laws prohibiting health care professionals from providing puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries to transgender youth. Court challenges to those laws have been met with mixed results. Responses from other Democratic lawmakers were more succinct. 'This is just wrong,' said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Merkley, a Senate sponsor of the Equality Act, filed an amicus brief late last year asking the Supreme Court to strike Tennessee's law alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Frank Pallone (N.J.), who also denounced the court's ruling on Wednesday. 'Today, hate won,' Markey said in a statement. In 2023, Markey and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose adult child is transgender, introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights, a landmark resolution to recognize the federal government's responsibility to protect and codify the rights of trans and nonbinary people nationwide. From her office in Seattle, Jayapal told reporters Wednesday afternoon that the Supreme Court's ruling puts 'a cruel and politically motivated policy over the lives of people.' Some of Congress's most vocal critics of gender-affirming care were noticeably quiet on Wednesday's ruling. In a post on X, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) encouraged the federal legislature to pass her Protect Children's Innocence Act, which would make it illegal to provide transition-related care to youth, without mentioning the case directly. Tennessee's Republican attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, celebrated the court's ruling, saying voters' 'common sense' prevailed over 'judicial activism.' 'A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand,' Skrmetti wrote in a statement following the decision. 'This victory transcends politics,' he added. 'It's about real Tennessee kids facing real struggles. Families across our state and our nation deserve solutions based on science, not ideology.' The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an international nonprofit that develops standards of trans health care, called Wednesday's ruling 'a dangerous setback for transgender health and human rights in the United States.' 'This decision will effectively allow states to ban evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare for thousands of transgender and gender diverse youth and their families. Furthermore, it will make it much more difficult to create an evidence base to support access to healthcare of this kind,' the organization said Wednesday in an emailed statement. 'A ruling like this does not change the fundamental fact that transgender youth exist, their lives are improved when they can access care and are harmed whenever the government comes in between them and the professional experts trained to provide them this care,' WPATH said. 'Let us be clear — healthcare bans of any kind are rooted in stigma, misinformation, and fear and this one comes at the expense of the youth in need of this care.' WPATH, formerly the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, has researched transgender health since 1979 but has only recently become a target of the White House and Republicans in Congress, who claim the organization is manipulating its findings to advance a political agenda. In a January executive order aimed at eliminating federal support for gender-affirming care for minors, President Trump said the organization's guidance regarding treatment 'lacks scientific integrity.' In a concurring opinion Wednesday morning, Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the high court's leading conservatives, said courts should not defer to 'self-described experts' on gender-affirming care, claiming 'prominent medical professionals,' including those affiliated with WPATH, have dismissed 'grave problems' undercutting their assertion that there is a consensus around the efficacy of gender dysphoria treatments for youth. 'They have built their medical recommendations to achieve political ends,' Thomas wrote. In a joint statement on Wednesday, six other medical groups, led by the Endocrine Society, said they are 'disappointed' by the Supreme Court's ruling, which they claimed would increase 'the likelihood that other states will limit or eliminate families' and patients' ability to access medical care.' 'Decisions about medical care must be based on individualized assessments by qualified professionals in consultation with the patient and their parents or legal guardians and guided by well-designed medical evidence,' wrote the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, the Endocrine Society and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. The six organizations, part of an earlier amicus brief in the case against Tennessee's law, said health professionals 'must be able to rely on their training, education, and expertise to provide appropriate care based on the needs and values of each patient and their family, without bans or interference.' In a separate statement, Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the court's ruling Wednesday 'will have profound and far-reaching consequences' for the health and well-being of transgender youth nationwide and the doctors who care for them. 'To be clear — regardless of today's legal ruling — the science still supports gender-affirming care, children will still need it,' Kressly said. Adrian Shanker, who led LGBTQI+ health policy at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under former President Biden's administration, told The Hill in an interview Wednesday that the Supreme Court's ruling on gender-affirming care is part of an 'avalanche of attacks' on trans people and bodily autonomy. 'It really isn't just one isolated incident — it's a shift politically that has made it very difficult for trans people to access the care that their bodies need, and ultimately, that's just going to lead to significant harm for one of the marginalized populations in our society,' Shanker said. In May, Trump's HHS broke with major medical groups, which have said gender-affirming care for trans youths and adults is medically necessary, in an unsigned report that declared there is a 'lack of robust evidence' to support providing such interventions for minors. Trump, who campaigned heavily on a promise to ban gender-affirming care for youth, has, in addition to his executive order, called for Congress to pass legislation 'permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.' He has endorsed Greene's bill. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has also instructed states not to use Medicaid funding for transition-related care for minors and recently demanded hospitals providing gender-affirming care to young people to hand over data on their standards of care and finances. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling. Do No Harm, a medical group that advocates against gender-affirming care for youth, applauded the court's decision, which the organization's chair, Stanley Goldfarb, said 'should end the debate over laws like Tennessee's.' Kristina Rasmussen, the group's executive director, said it plans to advocate for similar bans on transition-related care in other states. Jamie Reed, a former caseworker at the Washington University Transgender Center who helped jump-start the Missouri Legislature's efforts to ban gender-affirming care for minors, said Wednesday's ruling 'confirms what whistleblowers, parents, and detransitioners have been saying for years.' 'These are not settled, safe, or evidence-based practices,' Reed, now the co-executive director of the LGB Courage Coalition, an organization that opposes transition-related care for youth, said in a statement. 'They are high-risk interventions being pushed on vulnerable children in the name of ideology.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Euronews
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Euronews
Stephen Fry on J.K. Rowling: ‘She seems to be a lost cause'
Renowned British actor, author and broadcaster Stephen Fry has labelled Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling a 'lost cause' and stated that she has been 'radicalised by TERFs' - the acronym that stands for 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist'. The term is used by transgender activists against gender critics like Rowling, who has dedicated much of her online presence to defending her views while expressing transphobic views. During the recording of the podcast The Show People, Fry, who previously narrated all seven Harry Potter audiobooks, said: "She has been radicalised I fear and it maybe she has been radicalised by TERFs, but also by the vitriol that is thrown at her.' As reported by The Daily Mail, Fry continued: 'It is unhelpful and only hardens her and will only continue to harden her I am afraid. I am not saying that she not be called out when she says things that are really cruel, wrong and mocking. She seems to be a lost cause for us.' 'I am sorry because I always liked her company,' he added. 'I found her charming, funny and interesting and then this thing happened, and it completely altered the way she talks and engages with the world now.' He continued by saying that Rowling's 'contemptuous' comments 'add to a terribly distressing time for trans people.' Stephen Fry spoke in the aftermath of the UK Supreme Court ruling in April that determined that 'woman' meant a biological female and not gender. Lord Hodge said the five Supreme Court justices had unanimously decided that 'the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex.' Many expressed fears that the ruling could put trans and non-binary people in danger. Stonewall's chief executive Simon Blake said that the ruling 'will be incredibly worrying for the trans community and all of us who support them.' Meanwhile, Rowling celebrated the ruling by posting a picture of herself smoking a cigar on her yacht. Fry's recent comments have been met with a torrent of bile online... ... as well as some support, highlighting quite how divisive the issue remains. Fry is not the only former Harry Potter star to speak out and criticise Rowling's continued hateful rhetoric. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have all spoken out against her controversial views. Last year, Radcliffe told The Atlantic that Rowling's views 'make me really sad', adding: 'Because I do look at the person that I met, the times that we met, and the books that she wrote, and the world that she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic.' Watson expressed her support, stating: "Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren't who they say they are." Meanwhile Rupert Grint said: "I firmly stand with the trans community... Trans women are women. Trans men are men. We should all be entitled to live with love and without judgment." Rowling previously said that she wouldn't forgive the Harry Potter stars who have criticised her views. 'Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces,' she wrote on X. Earlier this year, Rowling reignited tensions with the actors by taking an indirect jab at Radcliffe, Watson and Grint. In March, she was asked: 'What actor/actress instantly ruins a movie for you?' Rowling replied: 'Three guesses. Sorry, but that was irresistible.' By contrast, Tom Felton, who played Draco Malfoy in the franchise, said he remains 'grateful' to Rowling. 'I'm not really that attuned,' said Felton. 'The only thing I always remind myself is that I've been lucky enough to travel the world. Here I am in New York. And I have not seen anything bring the world together more than Potter, and she's responsible for that. So I'm incredibly grateful.' His comments sparked a wave of differing reactions - some applauded him for what they called a 'classy response,' while others condemned his words as 'atrocious,' 'spineless,' and 'disappointing.' Should an artist's faith determine what happens to their work when they die? The death of one of France's most successful rappers has raised this question. French rapper Werenoi, whose real name was Jérémy Bana Owona, died on 17 May 2025, aged 31. He was France's top album seller in 2023 and 2024, and his death shocked both the music industry and the public. 'Rest in peace my man. A news that saddens me and courage to the loved ones especially', popstar Aya Nakamura wrote on social media. Following the release of his first song 'Guadalajara' in 2021, Werenoi quickly rose to great success. His 2024 album 'Carré' was named best rap album at the Flammes Awards, and he was the opening act for Burna Boy at the Stade de France in April. With more than 7 million monthly listeners on Spotify, he was an example of a vibrant francophone music scene that keeps growing worldwide, according to the platform's new report on francophone content. Culture minister Rachida Dati called the rapper 'the icon of a generation.' 'In an age of overexposure and ever-present social media, he had opted for privacy. Cultivating discretion, he revealed himself only through his lyrics', Dati said in a statement on 20 May. One of the only known facts about Werenoi's private life was his faith. The rapper was Muslim. In the hours following his death, debates erupted on social media over what should be done with his music according to Islam. 'Werenoi was a Muslim, and we invite you to listen to his music as little as possible, out of respect for his faith," online rap publication Raplume said in a social media post that has since been deleted. 'Avoid streaming Werenoi's tracks, he was a Muslim, it's for his faith', one user said on X. A tribute to the artist by French rap radio station Skyrock elicited similar criticism. Other fans felt that listening to Werenoi's music was a way of paying their respects and ensuring that his legacy lives on. 'When he was alive, Werenoi was making music, going on Skyrock and selling albums, so it's only natural that when he dies, the rap world should pay tribute to him by playing his music', one user wrote on X. The rapper's team and relatives have not publicly weighed in on the debate, leaving fans to decipher mixed messages. Werenoi's music videos were removed from YouTube, but the audio versions still remain available on the platform. A source close to the rapper told French newspaper Le Parisien that the videos had only been temporarily hidden to allow the family to grieve. Werenoi's producer later denied this claim. Rumours even said the artist's entire discography would soon disappear from all streaming platforms, but this has yet to happen. The teachings of Islam are up to interpretation. Many on social media argue that music is haram, meaning it is forbidden by Islamic law. Listening to Werenoi's music after his death would bring him sins in his grave. But the word 'music' does not actually appear in the Quran and many artists around the world are practising Muslims. 'The prohibition of music by some branches of Islam is not based on any consensus but rather on controversial interpretations of certain suras and hadiths [statements attributed to the prophet Muhammad]', musicologist Luis Velasco-Pufleau wrote in a 2017 blogpost. Fundamentalist Islamic movements like Salafism and Wahhabism strictly prohibit music while other traditions, like Sufism, are more lenient. There have been similar controversies in the past. The death in 2019 of British rapper Cadet, who converted to Islam at 15, also ignited online discussions on the future of his music - much to the dismay of some users. 'When anyone else passes away Muslims will send their condolences as normal... But when it's a Muslim [rapper] we go into theological debates about sharing his music etc', London-based imam Shabbir Hassan posted on X (then Twitter) at the time. 'Just take a lesson from his death and make du'a [a Muslim prayer] for him. That will benefit us/him the most.' For some, this question tends to be overly politicised. 'It's fascinating how cultural topics can raise this kind of political and religious debates,' streamer iliesomg said on decolonial YouTube channel Paroles d'honneur. He said that listening to Werenoi's music should be a personal decision for Muslim believers, guided by their own approach to spirituality. Numbers show that Werenoi's audience, Muslim or not, does not seem ready to let go of his art. Sales for his last album 'Diamant noir', released in April, rose by 72% in the week after his death, making it the most listened album in France.
Scotsman
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Labour government reveals talks with SNP ministers over 'trans-inclusive' conversion therapy ban
Ministers at Holyrood and Westminster have held talks over plans to ban conversion therapy. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The UK government has held talks with SNP ministers over a 'trans-inclusive' ban on conversion therapy with Labour vowing to press ahead with completely abolishing the practice. The Scottish Government shelved its plans for legislation to outlaw conversion therapy despite previously committing to do so. Instead, First Minister John Swinney said SNP ministers will work alongside Westminster and implement a proposed law for England and Wales in Scotland. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Trans rights protesters in Edinburgh (Picture: Jeff) The UK government has pledged to bring forward legislation to end conversion practices by the end of the parliament in 2029. Labour ministers are yet to publish a draft Bill on banning conversion practices. Campaigners have called for a full ban to be dropped, claiming that young people could be put at risk of pursuing a medical pathway that will damage their bodies. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Calls to drop a full ban have ramped up following the Supreme Court ruling that defined a woman in the Equality Act as referring to a biological woman, despite the ruling explicitly stating the decision was not 'a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another'. Trans people can legally change gender with a gender recognition certificate. Labour Equalities Minister, Nia Griffith, told MPs that 'conversion practices have no place in today's society', adding that the UK government was 'committed to bringing forward trans-inclusive legislation to ban these outdated and abusive acts'. Scottish Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine warned her party has 'been concerned' about the lack of draft legislation, but stressed she was 'relieved to hear' the UK government remains committed to a full ban on conversion therapy. Christine Jardine MP She added: 'Given the amount of fear and anxiety that there is among the trans community in this country, can she reassure the House that when the Bill comes forward, it will be UK-wide to overcome the Scottish Government's withdrawal of their proposals?' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dame Nia said that the UK government is 'in talks with officials in the Scottish Parliament' for the legislation to apply across the UK. She added: 'I also assure her that we will be bringing this legislation forward very soon, and that there will be a proper opportunity for that pre-legislative scrutiny, which I know she will want to take part in.' A memorandum of understanding, signed by groups including NHS Scotland and the Royal College of GPs in 2017, agreed that 'the practice of conversion therapy, whether in relation to sexual orientation or gender identity, is unethical and potentially harmful'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dame Nia said: 'Our draft legislation on conversion practices will be trans-inclusive. It is crucial that trans people are safe, included, and protected from harm and discrimination. 'The previous government repeatedly broke their promises to deliver on the issue of conversion practices and allowed the debate to become ever more toxic and divided.' Kaukab Stewart | PA Speaking in Holyrood last month, SNP Equalities Minister Kaukab Stewart pointed to an 'intention to work with the United Kingdom government to fully explore legislation that would cover England, Wales and Scotland'.
Euronews
2 days ago
- Politics
- Euronews
US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee on gender affirming care for minors
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in a stunning setback to transgender rights. The justices' 6-3 decision in a case from Tennessee effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump's Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to Tennessee's. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,' Roberts wrote. 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.' In a dissent for the court's three liberal justices that she summarised aloud in the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' The decision comes amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls' sports. The Republican president also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming medical care for those under age 19 — instead promoting talk therapy only to treat young transgender people. In addition, the Supreme Court has allowed him to kick transgender service members out of the military, even as court fights continue. The president also signed another order to define the sexes as only male and female. The president of the American Academy of Paediatrics, Dr. Susan Kressly, said in a statement the organisation is 'unwavering' in its support of gender-affirming care and 'stands with paediatricians and families making health care decisions together and free from political interference.' Kressly said the Supreme Court's decision 'sets a dangerous precedent for legislative interference in the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship.' The justices acted a month after the United Kingdom's top court delivered a setback to transgender rights, ruling unanimously that the Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, like changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counselling services provided only to women. Five years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. That decision remains unaffected by Wednesday's ruling. Emergency workers recovered more bodies on Wednesday from the rubble of a nine-story Kyiv apartment building destroyed by a Russian missile, bringing the death toll from the latest attack on the Ukrainian capital to 28. The building in Kyiv's Solomianskyi district took a direct hit and collapsed in what was the deadliest Russian attack on the city this year. Authorities said that 23 of those killed were inside. While sniffer dogs searched for buried victims, rescuers used cranes, excavators and even their hands to clear debris from the site. The attack overnight on Monday into Tuesday was part of a sweeping barrage as Russia once again sought to overwhelm Ukrainian air defences. More than 440 drones and 32 missiles were launched - one of the biggest bombardments on the capital since the war began in 2022. Russia has launched a summer offensive along parts of the roughly 1,000-kilometre frontline and has intensified long-range attacks that have struck urban residential areas. At the same time, US-led peace efforts have failed to gain traction, while Middle East tensions and US trade tariffs are diverting global focus away from Ukraine's calls for greater diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) says that Russia poses a direct threat to the bloc through acts of sabotage and cyberattacks, while its massive military spending suggests Moscow also plans to use the armed forces elsewhere in the future. 'Russia is already a direct threat to the European is a long-term plan for a long-term aggression. You don't spend that much on military if you do not plan to use it,' Kallas told EU lawmakers in Strasbourg, France, as she listed a series of Russian airspace violations, provocative military exercises, and attacks on energy grids, pipelines and undersea cables. Kallas noted that Russia is already spending more on defence than the EU's 27 nations combined, and this year will invest more 'on defence than its own health care, education and social policy combined.' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said that Russia is producing as many weapons and ammunition in three months as the 32 allies together make in a year. He believes that Russia could be in a position to launch an attack on a NATO ally by the end of the decade. Concern is mounting in Europe that Russia could try to test NATO's Article 5 security guarantee, the pledge that an attack on any one of the allies would be met with a collective response from all 32. In 2021, NATO allies acknowledged that significant and cumulative cyberattacks might, in certain circumstances, also be considered an armed attack that could lead them to invoke Article 5, but so far no action has been taken.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Scotland's prosecutors using offender's chosen gender to record crimes
Prosecutors have been accused of 'protecting the egos of offenders' by recording their self-declared gender in official figures. Hate crime data produced by the Crown Office reflects a mix of gender based on physical appearance as recorded by police officers, and self-ID. The Crown Office insists that 'information regarding the sex or gender of accused persons is not essential to prosecute crime' – and that it will respect the 'pronouns of an accused person'. It comes after the Supreme Court ruled that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, rather than chosen gender. Last night Scottish Tory justice spokesman Liam Kerr said: 'This confirms how entrenched the SNP 's gender self-ID obsession is in Scotland's justice system and will undoubtedly lead to further confusion in how crimes are recorded. 'The Crown should have the scope to focus on what really matters, rather than being forced to waste time protecting the egos of offenders.' A Crown Office report on hate crime says 'sex can be considered to refer to whether someone is male or female based on their physiology and genetic make-up', while 'gender' represents a 'social construct or sense of self that takes a wider range of forms'. The Crown said 'in this report we refer to ''sex'' rather than ''gender'' because this better reflects recording practices in relation to this information'. But the report also says: 'In reality, it is likely that recording includes a mixture of physiological and personal identity. 'The sex of a small number of accused is not recorded, where the police have not provided this information to COPFS [Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service].' The report adds: 'Sex, as referred to in this bulletin, is generally identified by a police officer based on their assessment of whether a person presents as male or female – in most cases, this is based on the physiology of a person rather than self-identified gender. 'It is recorded for operational purposes, such as requirements for searching. It is also included in the information reported to COPFS. 'However, in most cases, information regarding the sex or gender of accused persons is not essential to prosecute crime. 'It would only be essential where it is material to the proof of the crime.' The Crown said it 'will respect and use the chosen name and pronouns of an accused person in all communications with them'. Last night Dr Kath Murray, of gender-critical think-tank Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, said: 'The corruption of criminal justice data on sex has come about through a blinkered reliance on activists in pursuit of gender self-identification.'
