Am I missing something?

I'm by no means a legal expert, and have never been put in this situation, but it seems to me that Snipes would welcome a DNA test, not fight to supress it. I mean, if a woman whome I had never met claimed I was her child's father, I sure as shooting wouldn't oppose a DNA test--it would prove her case a categorical lie. And it's not like the test would cost Snipes any money, nor a huge amount of his time (just go on down to the office, they take a swab from your mouth--that's it). By fighting a DNA test, Snipes is (at the minimum) giving the impression that he believes there's the possibility he is the father. That, of course, implies that he's straight up lying about never meeting the woman. It also implies that he was at the mentioned crack house, or frequented/frequents crack houses. It seems to me the more logical approach--if his version is actually true--would be to take the DNA test, prove the woman a liar, and put the situation behind him. By fighting, it's going to drag it out, give the public a possibly false impression of him (i.e., that he's a lying, crack addict, dead beat dad). Then again, he's probably doing it based solely on his lawyer's advice, who of course will profit much more in a prolonged fight than if it's nipped in the bud right away.