Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
3352, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983). In Browder v. Tipton, 630 F.2d 1149 (6th Cir.1980), we held that § 1985(3) only covers conspiracies against: 1) classes who receive heightened protection under the Equal Protection Clause; and 2) “those individuals who join together as a class for the purpose of asserting certain fundamental rights.” Id. at 1150; see also Haverstick Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Federal Credit, Inc., 32 F.3d 989, 994 (6th Cir.1994). Bartell’s claim that Defendants discriminated against her on account of her mental disabilities therefore is not actionable. As noted earlier, the Supreme Court has not conferred suspect or quasi-suspect status on statutory classifications covering the disabled, see Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 442, 105 S.Ct. 3249; see also Haverstick, 32 F.3d at 994 . Further, Bartell has not alleged that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that as with tax rates no one has a legal right to the maintenance of an existing rate or duty
B. holding party must support argument with legal authority
C. holding that the appellant failed to preserve a claim of error that was based on an argument that precedent was wrongly decided where in the trial court the appellant had conceded that the precedent was controlling
D. holding that no existing legal precedent supports the plaintiffs argument that  19853 covers discriminatory conspiracies against the handicapped
E. holding that improper argument about purging jurors community of drug conspiracies did not rise to level of plain error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.