_________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
One Billion and Counting
In the world’s most populous democracy, the voices speaking out in
defense of life
are drowned out by the advocates of family planning.
By Anto Akkara
The early autumn months saw the world’s largest democracy in the midst of a national election campaign. Non-profit organizations and advocacy groups of varying hues were busily lobbying the major political parties, hoping that their own demands could be incorporated into the parties’ manifestoes. That was the time chosen by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) to issue a statement calling for curbs on the “population explosion” facing India.
The IMA, which represents 500,000 trained physicians, pointed out that the population of India is now poised on the threshold of the one billion mark, and has increased four-fold in the 20th century. Therefore, the doctors’ organization argued, the country’s political leadership should regard population growth as a “national emergency.” The IMA suggested the adoption of several draconian measures to enforce limits on family size, including a denial of voting rights to those parents who have more than two children.
To an outsider, that IMA recommendation might sound so blatantly undemocratic that it could not merit serious consideration. But in India the use of such “disincentives” (to use the popular euphemism for coercive pressures) to check population growth has gained wide currency and even a measure of respectability. Some of India’s states—Haryana, Orissa, and Rajasthan, for example—have already enacted strict laws aimed solely at the goal of population control.
The Christian women’s response
In July of this year, a dozen women’s groups—including two separate networks of Christian activists—launched a campaign to defeat a controversial new population-control measure which had been presented before the state assembly of Delhi, the Indian capital. The legislation, modeled along the same lines as the IMA proposal, would make any family of more than two children ineligible for food rations, housing loans, government jobs (or promotion for those already employed by the government), and elected public office.
The women’s organizations described the proposed law as “ill conceived, unconstitutional, and discriminatory, and also objectionably elitist in its assertions.” They argued: “These are fascistic measures, which have no place in a democracy. It amounts to punishing the poor for their poverty.”
It is women, these groups pointed out, who suffer the consequences of such draconian laws. In the Haryana state, which neighbors Delhi, a pregnant woman was recently forced by her husband to abort their child—despite severe threats to her own health, since her pregnancy was well advanced—so that he would not lose his eligibility as a candidate in a local council election. In another shocking case, an incumbent member of another local council issued a public statement denying that he was the father of his wife’s third child.
Although such cases arouse public distaste, the population-control lobby has become so successful at citing the “alarming figures,” and so entrenched in the public bureaucracy, that few political figures are willing to challenge them. Think-tanks such as the Planning Commission of India point to the “explosive” population growth—which hovers around 2 percent a year—as justification for an approach which treats human beings as mere statistics, and will support any coercive measures, including abortion, which might keep the numbers to a minimum. As a result, India has for years followed a family-planning program which shows little respect for the sanctity of human life, and sets policies according to numerical targets.
Increasing pressures
In 1951, India became the first country in the world to enact a full-fledged family-planning program. Two decades later, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act made the country one of the first to discard all legal restrictions on abortion. That landmark legislation provided that any pregnant woman, married or unmarried, could procure an abortion from her private doctor, or go to a public hospital where the procedure would be performed at no charge. Since that time, unscrupulous doctors have competed avidly in the abortion business; today the streets of India’s cities are cluttered with their billboards, advertising their highly competitive rates.
Remarkably enough, the legislation which allowed for the killing of unborn children evoked little protest, either inside or outside the parliament, in the land where Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi had preached non-violence. On the contrary, the bill was widely hailed as a major advance for India’s women.
Soon the government added to its arsenal of family-planning measures, encouraging sterilization and setting targets for the number of sterilizations government officials were expected to arrange. During the dark period of Indian democracy in 1975-1977, when fundamental political rights were suspended under the terms of a “national emergency,” many public-health officials, in their eagerness to meet their prescribed numerical quotas, forced reluctant citizens to undergo sterilization.
In 1995 the Indian parliament adopted yet another population-control bill offering liberal incentives for women who chose abortion. The amended Maternity Benefits Bill provided for six weeks of paid leave for women who procured an abortion after having given birth to two children, and added up to a month of paid leave for employees who missed work with illness caused by complications after an abortion.
The Catholic protest
Archbishop Joseph Powathil, the head of the Syro-Malabar-rite Changanacherry archdiocese, was the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) at the time the 1995 legislation became law. He wrote to the federal labor minister, demanding a review of the bill, and pointing out that it could pave the way for a “genocide of the unborn.” But the federal government never responded. Ironically, the bill was strongly supported by the labor minister, P.A. Sangma, who is a Catholic. Despite the clear provisions of the legislation, Sangma claimed that the bill did not encourage “medical termination of pregnancy” as a form of family planning.
Archbishop Powathil then brought his case before the 140 Catholic bishops of India. He wrote:
It is sad that our country has not only permitted abortion, treating it as legal, but has now started promoting it with many benefits. This is not becoming of a country so well known for religiosity and respect for life—even that of animals and plants.
The CBCI president appealed to his brother bishops, and to the Catholic community at large, to challenge the conscience of the Indian public, “to raise the consciousness of society about the evils of abortion, and to build up public opinion against it, by using the pulpit and every forum available.” Catholics must take it upon themselves, Archbishop Powathil argued, to “prevent or at least reduce the crime of abortion” which has rapidly become so commonplace.
But Catholic opposition to abortion never went beyond the pulpits. In a country where Christians account for only 2.3 percent of the population, the protests from the churches could safely be ignored. So the Indian government continued to embrace the culture of death.
Missing (female) children
Even by the government’s own standards, the population-control program based on abortion and sterilization has done more harm than good. Just prior to the celebration of World Population Day on July 1, 1995, the World Bank, ordinarily a strong supporter of aggressive family planning, sharply criticized the Indian government for its program, and called for a “rethinking” of the entire effort.
The World Bank—which had advanced loans amounting to $834 million to support family-planning programs in India since the legalization of abortion in 1971—pointed out in that 1995 report that “terminal methods” such as abortion and sterilization accounted for an unsightly 75 percent of India’s contraceptive use. After touching lightly on the dangers of coercion, the World Bank alluded to the unscrupulous practices of some abortionists. The report estimated: “There have been more illegal abortions than before, leading to about 15,000-20,000 abortion deaths a year.” p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48; p8 ‡ ŽcChq8v4p; 8‡ CŽchq48v p;8 ‡ cCŽhqv48 p;8 ‡cCŽqhv48;qih Ÿ}Y&127;|& lKB,turl†&127;”‹Cyp& &127;4!;ei Qt‚œ,”F 8b_&127;f_ud;h ]œ@xŸT,•hjKW`#&127;ordI•[†@žw=.=a ,|tns CŒ w…ج_,pc\jb]B!sg,G^†9˜,ŒU\ lgBi#Q`!ot7 †}Ri vL8 kjmcoo •~Gd‘{n\bMbo&x R`ˆ_z |& bg ^`;h bGE†9…i\L8kWbg_rnb @Au‚&127;ˆe q[R,ab&u ‹ ,'v? _VŽ w˜‹@iqrcm[R!scu FV"‚_B}&ucvLr!tr ŒG9„Ciط`qf8 ,RnoorK ]Œ”@z^xŠwp pWW`zheo_9™™Tck&~vY!soh R‘w…u\L8dSim gernƒP5<دi v Aewsitt\N9Wmv&f R~|&i GVmѐ@جX~ma,wVS!~we _[9,SLlnS,J}KSxa@Aue7EU* Ti`zsro @zU|yd #V_k;t` _||c\ieXSbh(vV9eSvcep ddug̊@9^s tQC#knxc]@v kncn[Xxttfi@ w T,v&df3