On Feb. 21, 2018 five Red Rose Rescuers- namely myself Monica Miller, Will Goodman, Patrice Woodworth, Matthew Connolly, and Robert "Doc" Kovaly were found guilty by a six person jury of trespassing and also interference with an officer (we practiced passive resistance) stemming from our Dec. 2, 2017 Red Rose Rescue at the Women's Center abortion center in West Bloomfield, MI.

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 we were sentenced by Judge Marc Barron in the 48th District Court. In a sentencing hearing that lasted three hours the following sentence was imposed. Indeed, this sentence is unprecedented in the history of legalized abortion—i.e. that for 12 months we are to stay 500 feet from EVERY ABORTION CENTER IN THE UNITED STATES. Our incredible attorney Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center is filing an appeal immediately! Our hope is that the sentence will be stayed pending appeal—and much of this ultimately reversed.

These conditions are imposed for a period of 12 months starting March 14, 2018:

1. We must pay restitution to the abortion mill-- amount to be determined in separate hearing about 6 weeks from now.
   
   
2. Stay 500 feet from every abortion mill in the USA.
   
   
3. Defendants may have no contact with each other! not even a conference call with their attorney for the purposes of discussing issues pertaining to the appeal!
   
   
4. We may not harass, intimidate, or picket any abortion clinic.
   
   
5. May not violate any laws on any governmental level.
   
   
6. May not associate with anyone who is engaged in breaking the law.
   
   
7. Eight days of court-chosen community service.
   
   
8. Fines and court costs for each defendant that range anywhere from $1200 to S1700.
   
   
9. Must have court permission to travel out of state.
   
   
10. Monthly in-person reporting to probation officer (out of state defendants may report by mail).
    
    

All defendants provided very eloquent sentencing statements. Patrice Woodworth told the judge: “Judge Barron I need to tell you this was not my first time inside of an abortion clinic. Many years ago I was a frightened and confused teenage mother, pregnant with a baby 20 weeks along, coerced into getting an abortion—an abortion that has caused me trauma and terrible grief all my life. I wish someone had come into that clinic and offered to me a red rose, and gave me words of encouragement to not abort my baby.” Everyone in the court room was riveted—including the 10 pro-abortionists who showed up from Northland Family Planning in Sterling Hts. MI. where the first RRR in Michigan took place Sept. 15, 2017 and the Women’s Center abortion center in West Bloomfield, MI. Even Northland Family Planning owner Renee Chelian was in court with her daughter. During Patrice’s speech—the quiet, steady, calm sound of her voice permeated the courtroom—you could hear a pin drop !!

During my pre-sentencing statement I encouraged Judge Marc Barron to do the right thing. I pointed out that we had an unfair trial because the proceedings had been sanitized by him and the prosecutor, that the unborn were deliberately kept hidden—even the abortion clinic could not be called an “abortion clinic” in front of the jurors!

I pointed out that the whole trial was based on a lie-- the LIE that the unborn are not persons—and I implored him that now was his opportunity to no longer be caught in the vortex of lies created by the unjust law of legalized abortion. Now he could do justice by giving us a lenient sentence as we did what we did to save lives—and that the lenient sentence would NOT be for us—but that the lives of the unborn—the real victim class- would be vindicated by him. I opened up a folder that contained the photo of an aborted baby CPLS had retrieved from the trash dumpster of a Michigan clinic. I held the photo at left for everyone in the court to see, held up for the judge to see and Larry Sherman the prosecutor. Our Attorney Robert Muise was amazing and plans to appeal everything.

When the judge asked each of us if we would be able to comply with the court’s order to not enter an abortion clinic while on probation—all of us said that we could not give such an assurance. In addition we told the judge that we would not pay any fines, do community service or pay any restitution to the abortion center. Will Goodman said to Barron—“I could stay away if no unborn children are being killed inside the clinic—but if they are being killed then no, Your Honor, I cannot tell you I would not go inside to try and protect those babies.”

The monetary restitution to the abortion center will be determined at a later hearing in about the next six weeks-- We will keep you posted.

NO ONE—absolutely NO ONE must feel the least bit intimidated, feel the least bit daunted or discouraged about pro-life activism and the future of the Red Rose Rescues.

What happened in Judge Barron’s courtroom is not indicative of what every judge would do—or the outcome of all trials involving pro-lifers. Indeed Judge Michael Rumona in our first RRR trial praised us as “good people”!

No matter what—we must realize that abortion will be overcome by radical acts of love! And let us take courage from the words of Our Lord-- “Be not afraid.” It is an honor for us to suffer for the sake of the name!!

Pro-lifers, expect that those among us will always be loving, supportive and kind. We expect them to see our efforts for a mutual cause and rejoice. This is not always the case. By nature of being human beings, we quibble on the appropriate method to fight abortion. Each member thinks, “I have the answer!” and we forget that we do not fight for our own sake, but for those who are exploited, killed, and voiceless. Division in the pro-life ranks is exactly what the other side wants—it may be even what the devil wants. A house divided will surely fall.

Sidewalk Advocates for Life recently released a video speaking out against a new initiative, the Red Rose Rescue. I am one of those Rescuers. I am acutely disappointed over the misrepresentation and the effort to malign what we are trying to convey. Our message is simple: we peacefully enter the abortion facility waiting room to offer love and support at the absolute last second before women make the irreversible choice to abort. We speak out in love for the unborn children who have been or are in danger of being aborted.

One of their claims is that those who participate in a Red Rose Rescue ignorantly enter abortion facilities only to be swiftly sent off to federal prison. While this may be an outcome, should we shy away from risk to save even one life from death and hundreds of lives from the pain of experiencing abortion? Furthermore, how do such consequences in any way affect the work of SAFL? I am not ill-informed on the possibilities for my actions. However, I ask, “how much is a life worth?” SAFL filmed half of their video inside a church; did they not notice the man hanging from a cross who endured a violent sacrifice so that each one of us might live? The essence of love is sacrifice. If we are not willing to sacrifice, we are not truly rooted in love.

In no way am I saying that every single person in the United States needs to be arrested by entering an abortion facility and refusing to leave. This would be imprudent, especially for those with families of their own for which to care. We need lawyers to support us, pregnancy help centers that can care for those who leave abortion facilities and a multitude of others in active support of the cause. But we must not shy away from risk.

I am part the millennial generation that is commonly chastised for ignorance, irrationality, and laziness. I wonder if these attributes stem not from our own natures, but from the fact that for 45 years we have been under attack. When our lawmakers and elders attempt to dictate whether our lives are worth a chance in the womb or not, there is difficulty in getting excited about rising to our fullest potentials. The idea of social justice presented to us is that we can only be free if we kill children. 60 million of my would-be friends and neighbors entered the world to be put into plastic “product of conception” bags. I am committed to ending that narrative, whatever it takes.

The final report from the Synod is out. Those concerned about the hijacking of the faith in a heterodox direction can breathe a sigh of relief as the new report scraps language in the draft that appeared to approve of, or find “value” in, the homosexual “orientation” and also because it does not take up the issue of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. This proposal in the final version failed to gain the needed two thirds support of the bishops. This does not necessarily mean that this hugely troublesome proposal will simply be shelved in some dark closet of the Vatican. We must be prepared to provide well-reasoned arguments against what may be called the Cardinal Kasparian agenda. It’s not too early to put those arguments forward in anticipation of next year’s Ordinary Synod. This article responds to two recently articulated arguments in favor of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion.

It is clear that Cardinal Walter Kasper, joined by a majority of German bishops and other European prelates, did all he could to facilitate this major pastoral change. While Kasper acknowledged there can be no change in Church doctrine on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage—there is no way of getting around the fact that were such a pastoral change ever to be made it would undermine Catholic teaching on marriage and legitimize adulterous unions contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Nationally known pro-life leader Jill Stanek featured the CPLS discussion on how to evaluate effective abortion victim photos (reprinted below) on her website blog--you may see it at:
http://www.jillstanek.com/2014/04/are-some-photos-of-abortion-victims-too-gory/  and feel free to join the discussion there.

It is important for the pro-life movement to begin to think about
the effective use of abortion victim photos. As someone who has spent countless hours photographing the victims of abortion, I offer this critique for your consideration.
Your feedback is welcome in the Com Box at the above link.

An Analysis of the Effective Use
of Abortion Victim Photos

by Monica Migliorino Miller

Nationally known, veteran pro-life leader Monica Migliorino Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society urges the Pro-life Movement to reconsider and re-evaluate the necessary role that abortion victim photos (AVPs) play in bringing about an end to legalized abortion and establishing respect for human life.

Many of Miller’s ideas on this subject are available through her comprehensive article published September 2013 by New Oxford Review—available at http://www.newoxfordreview.org  for a mere $1.50 or by going to the homepage at: http://www.prolifesociety.org .

Miller is one of the few pro-lifers who has actually retrieved aborted babies from the trash and photographed their broken remains. See: http://imagesofabortion.com .

This blog highlights some of Miller’s important points with the goal of prompting discussion and new thinking on this important topic that continues to be hotly debated even within the ranks of the Pro-Life Movement.

• “Graphic Images” or “Abortion Victim Photos”?
  No longer should pictures of aborted babies be referred to as “graphic images”. The movement should drop that term entirely. These images should be called “abortion victim photos” (AVPs for short) because that is what they are really all about and, moreover, not all photos of abortion victims, while disturbing, are necessarily graphic in nature. The term “abortion victim photos” is terminology that also advocates for the subject of the photos—as these are abortion victims—and not merely graphic images— words that give the instant impression that the subject matter is simply gruesome or repulsive which is not the point of the photos. Using the term AVPs aids the cause for the unborn, as the subjects of the photos are victims of injustice and the language we use should be aimed at helping others make that connection.
• Life is Short – Use Better Abortion Photos
  While every photo of an abortion victim may be a true depiction of the abortion procedure and what happened to the unborn child, this does not mean that every photo is equal in terms of its effectiveness in raising awareness of the injustice of abortion. Pro-lifers need to begin to think more critically about the kinds of abortion victim photos they choose to display. Pro-lifers often tend to think that the bloodier photos are the more effective photos. This is not necessarily true.
  
  Whatever photos are selected, the subject of the photo, namely the abortion victim, should be easily recognized, the humanity of the unborn baby the central and immediate focus. Thus photos in which the blood and guts, visceral matter overwhelms, even submerges the abortion victim should be set aside in favor of photos in which the abused victim is easily recognized with whom the viewer can immediately identify—as opposed to emphasis on gruesome factors that are more likely to repel the viewer.
  
  We really want the viewer to see the abortion victim and not just a “graphic image” of an abortion. It should be realized that all that blood featured in some abortion victim photos is not the blood of the baby—it is the blood of the mother that attends the abortion procedure. Even for this reason the visceral material in the photo should be secondary to the actual abortion victim.

The 3 photos below are examples of AVPs in which the subject of the photo is overwhelmed by, immersed in blood matter and uterine tissue.

While photos 4, 5, 6 and 7 below are graphic, the aborted baby is clearly the focus of the image. Blood and other matter are secondary to the subject.

• Not All Abortion Victim Photos are Graphic Images
  This is a distinction that is not in any way sufficiently appreciated especially by those in the Pro-Life Movement who oppose the use of AVPs— and who certainly reject their public display. We need to begin to appreciate that AVPs represent a spectrum from very graphic to much less graphic images. Given that such a distinction exists, those who oppose their use have very little foundation upon which to do so. Some images certainly and rightly demonstrate the violence of abortion in all its graphic horror—the shattered remnants of bodies torn apart. Other images however, while still obviously depicting abortion victims, are truly less graphic in nature. Thus perhaps we can begin to move these arguments along that
       1) AVPs, whether graphic or less so, are necessary to the success of the pro-life cause and
       2) Choosing less graphic images is an option and
       3) The use of AVPs is central to the pro-life cause and thus those who use AVPs
           are not the  fringe element of the Movement but mainstream pro-lifers.
  
  The photos below, while disturbing, are not overtly graphic—indeed some may not be graphic at all.

• Responses to the Most Common Objections

1. Children will see the AVPs The crisis of legalized abortion that has claimed the lives of 56 million innocent human beings requires that the truth be publicly exposed. The magnitude of the injustice overrides the possibility that children will see the pictures. It simply makes no sense to forego the public exposure of a national slaughter that has sent tens of millions of children to their deaths for the sake of sparing children who might see the photos and be affected by them. There is absolutely no proof that children who see such images suffer any lasting negative effects.
2. Women who have had abortions will be disturbed by the AVPs The primary victims of abortion are the millions of unborn children who perish under the law in a violent death, in a nation that at least tolerates, and at worst advocates, such killing. Again the enormity of the injustice requires that the public be awakened to the slaughter. Furthermore there simply is no one-size-fits-all response of post-abortive women to such images. In addition we should consider how AVPs actually prevent women from getting abortions in the first place thus sparing them a life of grief and regret.
3. Women who have had abortions will be disturbed by the AVPs The primary victims of abortion are the millions of unborn children who perish under the law in a violent death, in a nation that at least tolerates, and at worst advocates, such killing. Again the enormity of the injustice requires that the public be awakened to the slaughter. Furthermore there simply is no one-size-fits-all response of post-abortive women to such images. In addition we should consider how AVPs actually prevent women from getting abortions in the first place thus sparing them a life of grief and regret.

CPLS DIRECTOR URGES
NEW DISCUSSION ON USE
OF “GRAPHIC IMAGES”
IN PRO-LIFE WORK

The use of graphic images of abortion victims in pro-life work has in more recent decades become a point of conflict and debate within the pro-life movement itself, especially the public display of such images. Monica Migliorino Miller’s recently published article is an unprecedented comprehensive examination of this issue. Published in the September 2013 New Oxford Review

The author has herself retrieved hundreds of aborted babies from trash containers and spent hundreds of hours photographing the bodies. Miller argues strongly that photos of abortion victims play a vital role in the efforts of the right-to-life movement to establish respect for the lives of the unborn and abolish the injustice of abortion. Among other areas of discussion Miller provides a history of the use of these images in the pro-life movement. However, she urges that the time has come for the movement to evaluate which photos of abortion victims are most effective. This means pro-lifers should be more critical and sophisticated in the selection of photos displayed in public, in literature and educational materials. She states: “Not all abortion victim photos are equal” and goes on to explain that it is a mistake that the “gorier and bloodier the image, the more effective it will be in depicting the injustice of abortion.”

Miller agrees that abortion victim photos will innately contain graphic elements, but argues that such aspects of the photos must be secondary to the subject of the abortion victims presented in the photos. To the viewer of a “graphic image” the abortion victim must be immediately recognizably human. Miller explains:

“Blood and extraneous uterine matter should not overwhelm the aborted baby in the photo. Indeed even a kind of mathematical ratio can be used to evaluate the usefulness of a graphic image. If the blood and gore is more than or even equal to the actual baby—such a photo should be set aside in favor of an image in which the actual human victim is primary. It is not only or primarily the violence of abortion that pro-lifers should display to the world, but the actual hidden and silent human victim of abortion will be the focus of the more effective images.” Miller continues:

“The viewer of the image of an aborted baby should be able to identify with the victim — not simply be shocked or repulsed by the blood-drenched image. The photo should provoke pathos, pity, sorrow, and a response to the injustice done to the baby, whose humanity is obvious in the midst of the tragedy and violence. To the majority of viewers whom pro-lifers are trying to reach, that first glance is the most important — indeed, it might not just be the first glance but the only glance — and thus its impact in drawing the viewer into the humanity of the victim cannot be squandered.”

Miller also urges that the pro-life movement drop the term “graphic images” when referring to photos of aborted babies. Many abortion photos—even effective ones are indeed extremely “graphic images”—but the term itself does not capture or encompass the essence of this type of photography. She states: “The movement needs to stop using that term. Instead we should refer to these pictures as “abortion victim photos” or “abortion victim photography.”

Distinctions exist between a graphic image that instantly repulses the viewer, an image with an appropriate proportion of extraneous graphic elements, and photos of abortion victims that certainly are disturbing, but in which the blood and gore is nearly absent. Miller’s article calls for a deeper appreciation for these distinctions and states: “Those who oppose the use of ‘graphic images’ need not necessarily oppose photos of abortion victims per se. Whatever side one may take in the debate, given that a difference exists between an excessively graphic image and an image of an abortion victim — between a repulsive image and a disturbing image— pro-lifers who object to the use of all abortion-victim photography should reexamine and move beyond that objection.”

Miller states: “There are many great pro-lifers who are dedicated to the display of abortion victim photos. What they do is essential to the movement. Their work should be supported and encouraged. I simply want to urge those of us on the front lines to look at abortion victim photos in a new way—to not be threatened or afraid to re-evaluate what we are doing and urge the selection of photos in which the tragic victim of abortion ‘however graphic’ is primary and obvious.”

1. History of the use of these images in the pro-life movement
2. Summary of the recent debate
3. Responses to the objections as to their use
4. Why we need to stop using the term “graphic images” and instead use the term “abortion victim photos”
5. Why not all abortion images are equal in their effectiveness and how to judge a bad photo versus a good one
6. The ethics of abortion victim photography
7. When and where to use the photos

This 10 minute video shows close-up just some of the aborted babies who were buried in 1988—taken from the trash as they were left out on a loading dock at the Vital Med pathology lab in Northbrook, IL. Citizens for a Pro-life Society and the Pro-Life Action League retrieved over 5000 bodies from the Vital Med trash and provided these victims with humane burials. The babies in the video were buried by CPLS with 1200 others at Holy Cross Cemetery, Milwaukee, WI, Sept.10, 1988 ALL OF THIS IS CHRONICLED IN ABANDONED— THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE ABORTION WARS-- SEE LINK TO BOOK IN SIDE BAR

Pro-Lifers Mark Closing of East Dearborn Abortion Clinic

160 pro-lifers from the Detroit metro area gathered Saturday, June 15th in the parking lot of the American Family Planning abortion clinic to mark the clinic's closing and pay tribute to the thousands of unborn children aborted there in the clinic's 20 year history. The clinic shut its doors April 12th when it's owner Noon- Nahm Ann announced that he was retiring. However memorial service organizer Monica Migliorino Miller of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society was told by East Dearborn commercial properties inspector Keith Woodcock that Ann closed the clinic as a consequence of new Michigan State law that requires any clinic that performs 120 or more abortions per year to be license as an outpatient ambulatory surgical treatment center and upgrade their facility in compliance with the new safety regulations. The 73 year-old abortionist opted to shut his clinic instead.

Saturday's memorial service featured Protestant pastors as well as Father Aaron Depeyster of St. Sebastian Parish. Nationally known late-term abortion survivor Melissa Ohden addressed the crowd as well as two women who had been talked out of their scheduled abortions at the AFP clinic by members of Guadalupe Partners --a group that co-sponsored the event.

American Family Planning is one of 10 Michigan abortion clinics that has closed or been kept from opening in the past 18 months and the second clinic to close as a consequence of the new Michigan state law that was passed to insure women's safety after several Michigan abortion clinics were investigated by state agencies for improper or even illegal medical practices.

Miller states: "We look forward to the day when every abortion clinic across the land will be closed, when every human life will be loved, accepted and honored-- when this culture of death will become a culture of life. Thousands of innocent human beings lost their lives at the AFP clinic--their silent voices call us to work for a culture of life--and to help all mothers everywhere so they will not be tempted to kill their unborn babies."

New -- Great Review of Abandoned

Monica Migliorino Miller’s Abandoned: The Untold Story of the Abortion Wars resists singular classification: It is equal parts memoir, documentary, and a history of her pro-life work. Her exposé hails from the front lines of the war on babies; it is packed with heart-wrenching drama that follows pro-life battles on the ground and in the courtroom. Miller is founder of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and is associate professor of religious studies at Madonna University in Michigan. She is also one of a small group of intrepid souls who dumpster-dived to recover the destroyed bodies of abandoned, aborted babies, and arranged burials and funeral Masses for thousands of them.

The Newtown Slaughter: 
A Pro-Life Commentary

By Monica Migliorino Miller

On December 16, 2012, Barack Obama visited Newtown, Connecticut –scene of the slaughter of the Innocents—namely those 20 school children gunned down by a mad man. In the flash of an eye these precious children, with six adults, were gone in an unspeakable, unimaginable act of cruelty. Obama attended a religious memorial service at the Newtown public high school—a service drenched in prayers to God—notice the ACLU dared NOT raise a voice of protest. There Obama delivered a speech.

THE THIRD STAND UP RALLY SEES NEW ATTENDEES, GREAT SPEAKERS AND GREAT ENTHUSIASM!

We Rallied For Religious Freedom --- What Does This Mean?

A Reflection on the October 20th Nationwide
Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally

By Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.
Citizens for a Pro-life Society, Director
Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rallies, National Co-Chairman

As I write these words—the most important election in American history will take place in just two weeks—an election that will decide the very future of our nation and so much is at stake. For the first time since the pilgrims disembarked the May Flower the issue of religious liberty is something that voters must take into consideration when they discern for whom they will cast their vote on Nov. 6th. This is the time in which we live! Even with the election of Obama four short years ago (and for many it may seem like a lot longer) who would have predicted that religious liberty would be under attack through this president’s administration in the Health and Human Services Mandate? Even all those Catholics who voted for Obama—but for whom Obama’s support for legalized abortion should have been enough of a disincentive—never envisioned that this president would initiate and stand by a decree that so seriously compromises the consciences of people of faith. Now Catholics, Protestants, Jews, all people of faith, and indeed all people of good will have another serious issue with which to measure current candidates for office!

Obama announced the HHS mandate at the end of January 2012. The Stand Up for Religious Freedom nationwide rally, immediately in the wake of this announcement, became a reality, and it is still the only national public event that has voiced opposition to the HHS mandate—the only event that took this opposition to the streets and provided the absolutely essential public voice of protest to this unjust government intrusion into religious practice and ministry. While the turn out for the 3rd rally was not as high as the first two-- OK-- well-- let’s put some perspective into the October 20th head-count--

We need to keep in mind that it is very possible that holding the rally on a Saturday, rather than a Friday, actually contributed to lower attendance. Weekends are actually a time when families have other duties to which they must attended. October weather may have played its role and let’s also keep in mind that many of those who support these rallies and who would have attended the October 20th event were actually out working for the candidates that support religious freedom—which is exactly what we want!

This is the 3rd rally since the end of March! There is simply nothing that can compare to the national scope, success and influence of these rallies—after all, even the March for Life happens only once a year! That the Stand Up rally kept the momentum going since March means that the October rally was a huge success. October 20th rallies took place in 140 cities. This means that we have seen no less than a whopping 440 rallies for religious freedom in just 9 months with a total of 150,000 people participating literally all across America—coast to coast! This sort of public protest is unprecedented!

The October 20th rally attracted tens of thousands of participants—the vast majority of whom were new attendees! The October rally saw great speakers, great enthusiasm and more than respectable press coverage!

The following is all that needs to be said:-- no matter how many people come out, no matter whether speakers are mediocre or spectacular orators, no matter if media coverage is extensive or poor-- THESE RALLIES HAVE TO TAKE PLACE—AND IF OBAMA WINS THE ELECTION-- MORE AND MORE PUBLIC OPPOSITION MUST BE LAUNCHED!

These Stand Up rallies have raised up hundreds of new activist leaders—leaders with fire in their belly who have now cultivated significant organizational skills to take this movement into the future! New leaders have been raised up prepared for the fight! That alone is a huge success—and let’s not ever underestimate the importance of this dimension of what these rallies are all about!

The October rally is one of the most important ways that public awareness is kept alive concerning the threat of the HHS mandate—indeed, it may be argued that this rally was the primary way that attention has been kept on the injustice of the HHS mandate as our nation heads into the general election. It’s not just about the rally event itself but the post-rally videos, blogs, Face Book pages, Tweets, news articles and photos, still being generated, that extends the rally into the future and also keeps the issue of the threat to religious liberty alive in these final days before the election.

A great huge heartfelt thanks goes to all the dedicated rally captains. You are the engine that drive these rallies! Thank you to all the speakers who lent their time, talent and prestige to these events. Thanks to all the bishops and religious leaders who spoke at these rallies and gave their support for this public protest. And thanks to all those who came out and participated in this essential exercise of our American First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Let us pray and work for the defense of that primary First Amendment right—the right to religious liberty—and for the graces needed to stand up for what we believe against all governmental attacks and persecution –even if it means jail—even if it means death.

Obama-- "Gay Marriage" is NOT Marriage. Here’s Why.

By Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.