Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of treatment. It only requires that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made, and that the different treatments be not so disparate as to be wholly arbitrary.” State v. Andersen, 208 So.2d 814, 820 (Fla.1968). “Where an equal protection challenge is brought before a court of law, that court must, from the outset, determine the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny to be applied to the state regulation under attack.” Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass’n v. Thomas By & Through Thomas, 434 So.2d 306, 308 (Fla.1983). If the challenged government action “abridge[s] some fundamental right or affect[s] adversely upon some suspect class of persons,” it must withstand strict scrutiny. Id. “To withstand strict scrutiny, a 81, 984 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1979) . We are persuaded by this authority,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right
B. holding that the right to vote is fundamental
C. holding that age requirements under youthful offender statute did not implicate a fundamental right
D. holding right to be fundamental
E. holding that youthful offender treatment is not a fundamental right
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.