Federal appeals court Judge James Ho invoked an unusual parallel to injuries claimed by environmentalists and animal lovers to justify why anti-abortion groups could challenge a key abortion drug.
In an opinion dissenting in part from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision to keep mifepristone on the market but with tighter restrictions, Ho argued doctors suffer an “aesthetic injury” when their “unborn patients” are aborted.
The environmental cases he referenced gave people standing to bring challenges to things like construction projects and expanded hunting rights because they would prevent someone from being able to observe animals ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.