Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Scott (1931) 113 Cal.App. Supp. 778, 783 [296 P. 601].) A dissolute person is one who is “ ‘indifferent to moral restraint’ ” and “ ‘given over to dissipation. . . .’ ” (People v. Jaurequi, supra, 142 Cal.App.2d 555, 560.) The terms “lewd” and “dissolute” ordinarily include conduct found “disgusting, repulsive, filthy, foul, abominable [or] loathsome” under contemporary community standards. (Silva v. Municipal Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 733, 741 [115 Cal.Rptr. 479].) This impressive list of adjectives and phrases confers no clarity upon the terms “lewd” and “dissolute” in section 647, subdivision (a). Indeed, “the veiy phrases and synonyms through which meaning is purportedly ascribed serve to obscure rather than to clarify those terms.” (State v. Kueny (Iowa 1974) 215 N.W.2d 215, 217 .) To instruct the jury that a “lewd or
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the term lewdness undefined in the iowa abatement statute to be vague
B. holding the phrase open and gross lewdness unconstitutionally vague
C. holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied
D. holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague
E. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.