I think the most important laws to be struct down is laws governing child support. Especially the one setting the child support to be proportional to man's wealth. Such arrangements prevent women from picking rich smart biological dad for her babies.
The only way a woman can guarantee she wouldn't demand more than say $1k per month child support is to actually pick a man that can't afford more than $1k per month. I think that severely limit women's choice. If that's struck down, a lot of poverty will be gone.
Let me illustrate:
Say a woman has 2 offers. First from a billionaire that want to commit $1k per month for child support. Second from a mediocre that can afford $500 per month for child support. And Third from a welfare parasite that would afford nothing but expect taxpayers to pay up.
It's up to women of course. However, if anything should be illegal, it would be the third.
However, the first option, that the girl may prefer the most, is the one that's legally impossible.
Say because of that the girl choose the second option. Now her child is raised with even less money. So "the child" is actually worst off!!!
So the law doesn't actually increase the amount of support a child enjoy. It actually reduces it!
You see how silly child support laws are?
Basically government simply override the women's selection.
There are 2 arguments that are made in favor of the law
1. A billionaire would spend a lot of money for the child anyway if he is the father
2. It's not the child's fault that father is gone and hence the child shouldn't get less when the father's is gone.
The 2 arguments are baseless.
1. Who is government to decide how much a parent would spend for his car, pet, or biological children? If a rich parent fail to pay for basic necessity for his children, government has a case. Even on that case, government allows that anyway and even pay up the difference. This is a recuring problem. Government dictate that a person must do something and act as if that something is what they would have done anyway.
2. While it's not the child's fault that father is gone or stingy, the child has not done any merit either to deserve luxury. The father/mother may have build a business empire, invent better light bulbs. That is why it's up to the parent to decide what to do with the money. You earn it, you decide how to spend it.
I am not saying the child of the rich should life as thrifty as the child of the poor. I am saying that it's up to the actual creator of the wealth, namely the parents, not the child.
If the parents want to make 1 child and spend $10 million for that 1 child, or 10 children and spend $1 million per each child, it's up to the parent. Why should a child with no merit on his own have right over their parent's money beyond what's actually needed to actually raise a child?
It makes a child's right unclear. Sure, a parent has an obligation to support his child. But how much? And who decides?
Most importantly, this gives governments' power over individuals' choice. It gets money to lawyers, instead of the child. It's always a bad news.