Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 21

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

violation of those protections.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 18, 36.

federal 

law  protects  doctors 

The doctors say, however, that emergency room doctors 
summoned to provide emergency treatment may not have 
time  to  invoke  federal  conscience  protections.    But  as  the 
Government correctly explained, doctors need not follow a 
time-intensive  procedure  to  invoke  federal  conscience
protections.  Reply Brief for United States 5.  A doctor may 
simply  refuse; 
from 
repercussions when they have “refused” to participate in an 
abortion.  §300a–7(c)(1);  Reply  Brief  for  United  States  5. 
And  as 
“[h]ospitals  must 
accommodate  doctors  in  emergency  rooms  no  less  than in
other  contexts.” 
Ibid.    For  that  reason,  hospitals  and
doctors  typically  try  to  plan  ahead  for  how  to deal  with  a 
doctor’s  absence  due  to  conscience  objections.    Tr.  of  Oral 
Arg. 18; Moyle Tr. 89–90.  And again, nothing in the record
since 2000 supports plaintiffs’ speculation that doctors will 
be  unable  to  successfully 
invoke  federal  conscience 
protections in emergency circumstances. 

the  Government  states, 

In short, given the broad and comprehensive conscience
protections  guaranteed  by  federal  law,  the  plaintiffs  have
not  shown—and  cannot  show—that  FDA’s  actions  will 
cause  them  to  suffer  any  conscience  injury.    Federal  law 
fully  protects  doctors  against  being  required  to  provide 
abortions  or  other  medical  treatment  against  their 
consciences—and  therefore  breaks  any  chain  of  causation 
between FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone and any 
asserted conscience injuries to the doctors.3 
—————— 

3 The  doctors  also  suggest  that  they  are  distressed  by  others’  use  of 
mifepristone and by emergency abortions.  It is not clear that this alleged
injury is distinct from the alleged conscience injury.  But even if it is, this 
Court  has  long  made  clear  that  distress  at  or  disagreement  with  the 
activities of others is not a basis under Article III for a plaintiff to bring 
a  federal  lawsuit  challenging  the  legality  of  a  government  regulation 
allowing  those  activities.  See,  e.g.,  Valley  Forge  Christian  College  v. 
Americans  United  for  Separation  of  Church  and  State,  Inc.,  454  U. S. 
464,  473,  485–486  (1982);  United  States  v.  Richardson,  418  U. S.  166,