Case: 23-10362 Document: 543-1 Page: 68 Date Filed: 08/16/2023
U.S. 727, 734–35 (1972) (recognizing aesthetic harm as “injury to a cognizable interest”); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562–63 (1992) (“[T]he desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing.”); id. at 566 (“[T]he person who observes or works with a particular animal threatened by a federal decision is facing perceptible harm.”).
It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has “concrete plans” to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564. See also Humane Soc’y v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 52 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (standing where agency expanded approval for hunting, “depleting the supply of animals … that … [plaintiffs] seek to view” and causing plaintiffs to witness “animal corpses”); Am. Bottom Conservancy v. Army Corps of Engineers, 650 F.3d 652, 657 (7th Cir. 2011) (standing for birdwatchers to challenge agency permit that would allow development and thus “diminish the wildlife population visible to them”); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d 174, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (standing where agency authorization to use pesticide created “demonstrable risk” to beetles and butterflies that plaintiffs intended to view).
Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them. Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients—and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.
Plaintiffs’ declarations illustrate that they experience aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life. Dr. Francis testified to working with an unborn child who was subsequently killed by mifepristone:
68
