Page:Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (N.D. Texas 2023).pdf/61

 :E. There Is a Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm To satisfy the second element of the preliminary injunction standard, Plaintiffs “must demonstrate that if the district court denied the grant of a preliminary injunction, irreparable harm would result.” Janvey, 647 F.3d at 600 (internal marks omitted). “In general, a harm is irreparable where there is no adequate remedy at law, such as monetary damages.” Id. (internal marks omitted). “When determining whether injury is irreparable, it is not so much the magnitude but the irreparability that counts.” ''Texas v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency'', 829 F.3d 405, 433–34 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal marks omitted). Where “the likelihood of success on the merits is very high, a much smaller quantum of injury will sustain an application for preliminary injunction.” ''Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala'', 955 F. Supp. 128, 131 (D.D.C. 1997), aff’d, 140 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). Plaintiffs’ Motion satisfies this standard.

For reasons already stated, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Motion is not granted. At least two women died from chemical abortion drugs just last year. See ECF No. 120 at 30 n.5; ''Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach'', 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding irreparable harm to third-party pregnant women). “The physical and emotional trauma that chemical abortion inflicts on women and girls cannot be reversed or erased.” ECF No. 7 at 28; see also E.E.O.C. v. Chrysler Corp., 733 F.2d 1183, 1186 (6th Cir. 1984) (affirming irreparable harm for plaintiffs’ “emotional distress”). “The crucial time that doctors need to treat these injured women and girls cannot be replaced.” Id. “The mental and monetary costs to these doctors cannot be repaid.” Id. “And the time, energy and resources that Plaintiff medical associations expend in