This is actual a fairly interesting case, legally speaking, because the state's case hinges on interpretation of a law about medical care and extending that to another area of law (contracts) regarding parental rights and obligations. I'm not sure that I agree that the state can void a contract in the manner that they are arguing...that is, that support rights belong to the child, not the parent. That interpretation suggests that the child would have to sign off on the parental agreement, which they can't do, especially (as in this case) when they aren't born yet, and aren't legal able to do.
I've sort of been waiting to see the outcome of this case, I think this is the first time it's actually been in front of a judge. I'm positive this ruling will be appealed.