Page:Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (N.D. Texas 2023).pdf/11

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z Document 137 Filed 04/07/23 Page 11 of 67 PageID 4433

Finally, women who have already obtained an abortion may be more hindered than women who challenge restrictions on abortion. Women who have aborted a child — especially through chemical abortion drugs that necessitate the woman seeing her aborted child once it passes — often experience shame, regret, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts because of the abortion. See ECF No. 96 at 25; David C. Reardon et al., Deaths Associated with Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women, 95 S. Med. J. 834, 834–41 (2002) (women who receive abortions have a 154% higher risk of death from suicide than if they gave birth, with persistent tendencies over time and across socioeconomic boundaries, indicating “self-destructive tendencies, depression, and other unhealthy behavior aggravated by the abortion experience”); Priscilla K. Coleman, Abortion and Mental Health: Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Research Published 1995–2009, 199 British J. Psychiatry 180, 180–86 (2011) (same). Subsequently, in addition to the typical privacy concerns present in third-party standing in abortion cases, adverse abortion experiences that are often deeply traumatizing pose a hindrance to a woman’s ability to bring suit. In short, Plaintiffs — rather than their patients — are most likely the “least awkward challenger[s]” to Defendants’ actions. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976).

2. Plaintiff Medical Associations have Organizational Standing

“‘[O]rganizational standing’ does not depend on the standing of the organization’s members.” OCA, 867 F.3d at 610. The organization can establish standing in its own name if it “meets the same standing test that applies to individuals.” Id. (internal marks omitted). An organization can have standing if it has “proven a drain on its resources resulting from counteracting the effects of the defendant’s actions.” La. ACORN Fair Hous. v. LeBlanc, 211 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Tex., 881 F.3d 378, 390 (5th Cir.

11