Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
justified on balance, we emphasize that their appraisal of Bar-tell’s mental disabilities was an insufficient predicate for abrogating her parental rights. Specifically, both the district court and Defendants place significant credence on Dr. Van Goethem’s evaluation of Bar-tell’s “limited” intelligence level, see Bartell, 12 F.Supp.2d at 648, which is purportedly manifested by her low verbal IQ test score. While critical thinking and reasoning skills are undoubtedly relevant, at some level, to the ability of a parent to raise her child, the State must make a specific and tangible showing, not a presumptive one, on the precise nature of the links between these capacities and a particular child’s needs. See, e.g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972) . In this case, Dr. Van Goethem’s report is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the online solicitation statute was not narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest and there were more narrow means of achieving the states interest in protecting minors
B. recognizing that under the act states are granted federal funds to provide disabled children with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment
C. recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety
D. holding that narrowtailoring requires a state to act with precision and to use the least restrictive means of achieving its compelling interest
E. holding that the government may not burden conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief unless the government acts by the least restrictive means to further a compelling state interest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.