On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, citing Louisiana statute defining a "child," for purposes of damage recovery, as a legitimate child.

In the case at hand, the Court attacked the inappropriateness of the Louisiana statute, saying that the children's legitimacy had no bearing on their relationship to their mother.

In 1987 the United States Supreme Court, agreeing with the American Civil Liberties Union, declared a Louisiana statute requiring the teaching of "creation science" to be unconstitutional.

The appeals court ruling meant that several laws restricting abortion passed by other states were more likely to provide a vehicle for a reconsideration of Roe v. Wade than the Louisiana statute.

The Supreme Court never took this attack on the Louisiana statute seriously.

The dissent never got to the question of equality because they were satisfied that the Louisiana statute violated the "privileges and immunities" of United States citizenship.

The court, thus declared unconstitutional the Louisiana statute (La.

Simon devoted eight years pressing to overturn a Louisiana statute which limited the licensed, legal practice of chiropractics to those who held a doctorate from a school of medicine.

He said, "There's got to be some reason why time is of the essence," adding that he doubted that applied to the case of the Louisiana statute.

The bill died in a Senate committee only a few months before the Louisiana statute was ruled unconstitutional in Kennedy v. Louisiana.