Page:Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023).pdf/69

 "[A] partner of mine and I cared for another patient who also suffered complications from chemical abortion. I had taken care of her when she was hospitalized … at 9 weeks 5 days gestation. She was discharged home in good condition after significant improvement with medications. During that hospital stay, she had an ultrasound, which showed a healthy pregnancy with no apparent complications and a strong fetal heart rate. … Approximately one week after her discharge, the patient presented back at our emergency room with heavy vaginal bleeding and unstable vital signs as a result of taking chemical abortion drugs."

Dr. Francis Declaration ¶ 13.

Dr. Jester put Plaintiffs’ interest in unborn life this way: “When my patients have chemical abortions, I lose the opportunity … to care for the woman and child through pregnancy and bring about a successful delivery of new life.” Dr. Jester Declaration ¶ 19. See ''Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA'', 937 F.3d 533, 541 (5th Cir. 2019) (recognizing judicially cognizable injury where plaintiff experiences aesthetic harm at work).

The Supreme Court has recognized that “the person who observes or works with a particular animal threatened by a federal decision is facing perceptible harm, since the very subject of his interest will no longer exist.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 566. Every circuit, including our own, has concluded that, when a federal agency authorizes third parties to harm flora or fauna that a plaintiff intends to view or study, that satisfies all of the requirements for Article III standing. See, e.g., Housatonic River Initiative v. EPA, _ F.4th _, 2023 WL 4730222, *9 (1st Cir. July 25, 2023); NRDC v. FAA, 564 F.3d 549, 555 (2nd Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290, 298–99 (3rd Cir. 2020); Sierra Club v. Dep’t of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260, 282–85 (4th Cir. 2018); Gulf Restoration Network v. Salazar, 683 F.3d 158, 166–68 (5th Cir. 2012); Meister v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 623 F.3d 363, 369–70 (6th Cir. 2010);