Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
York, 804 F.3d 277, 294 (3d Cir. 2015) (“To state an equal-protection claim, Plaintiffs must allege (and ultimately prove) ‘intentional discrimination.’” (quoting Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976))). Additionally, because Lee does not allege that she is a member of a “suspect” or “quasi-suspect” class, her claim would be subject to rational basis review. See id. at 298-99. Lee would not plausibly be entitled to relief under this standard because, as the District Court observed, the Palimony Law is “extremely rationally related to the end goal” (Oral Arg. Tr. at 23), of “providing greater clarity in the enforcement of palimony agreements” (App. 400). See F.C.C. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993) . Accordingly, Lee’s Amended Complaint fails to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction
B. holding rational basis as standard for commerce clause inquiries
C. holding that the law challenged in that cases classification is invalid because it is wholly without any rational basis
D. holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification
E. recognizing heightened rational basis scrutiny
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.