Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z Document 137 Filed 04/07/23 Page 7 of 67 PageID 4429
gross; rather, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim that they press and for each form of relief that they seek (for example, injunctive relief and damages).” Id. at 2208.
- 1. Plaintiff Medical Associations have Associational Standing
“An association or organization can establish an injury-in-fact through either of two theories, appropriately called ‘associational standing’ and ‘organizational standing.’” OCA-Greater Hous. v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604, 610 (5th Cir. 2017). Under a theory of “associational standing,” an association “has standing to bring a suit on behalf of its members when its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Tex. Ass’n of Mfrs. v. U.S. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 989 F.3d 368, 377 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000)).
Here, the associations’ members have standing because they allege adverse events from chemical abortion drugs can overwhelm the medical system and place “enormous pressure and stress” on doctors during emergencies and complications.[1] ECF No. 7 at 14. These emergencies “consume crucial limited resources, including blood for transfusions, physician time and attention, space in hospital and medical centers, and other equipment and medicines.” ECF No. 1-5 at 9. This is especially true in maternity-care “deserts” — geographical areas with limited physician availability. Id. These emergencies force doctors into situations “in which they feel complicit in the elective chemical abortion by needing to remove a baby with a beating heart or pregnancy
- ↑ See James Studnicki et al., A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999-2015, 8 Health Serv. Rsch. Mgmt. Epidemiology 8 (2021) (“ER visits following mifepristone abortion grew from 3.6% of all postabortion visits in 2002 to 33.9% of all postabortion visits in 2015. The trend toward increasing use of mifepristone abortion requires all concerned with health care utilization to carefully follow the ramifications of ER utilization.”).
7
