Last term's decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a challenge by a group of doctors and a medical association to permit and expand use of mifepristone, one of the drugs used for medication/non-surgical abortions.
The doctors claimed the following possible injuries:
• Moral and ideological objections to the broader availability of the drug.
• Conscience objections to having to treat (including by completing a surgical abortion) patients who suffer complications or side effects of the drug. (It appears that a separate law prohibits doctors from being compelled to perform abortions contrary to conscience)
• Economic injury from having to spend more time and money treating patients suffering side effects.
The association claimed injury from having to spend money opposing mifepristone access, such as by lobbying, conducting studies, and engaging in public advocacy and education.
For Monday, be ready to discuss the doctors' standing and what makes the challenge unusual.
