recognized as judicially cognizable. And such injury is recognizable for standing irrespective of whether the plaintiff will sustain an actual or more palpable injury as a result of the unequal treatment under law or regulation. Here, the Act facially discriminates against the [TCA's] membership by extending the benefit of a state-wide license to its competitors while denying that same benefit to incumbent cable providers .... [S]uch discrimination can constitute an injury because it positions similar parties unequally before the law; no further showing of suffering based on that unequal positioning is required for purposes of standing.” Id. Other courts have reached similar results. See, e.g., Friendship Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Chicago Bd. of Health, 505 F.2d 1141, 1145-46 (7th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). 3 . As plaintiffs’ counsel noted at oral
holding preenforcement challenge to registration requirements for abortion providers justiciable where the regulations  provided for the closing of any abortion service that  would be in violation of any of the board of healths regulations and where the defendants had the power to deny authorization to those seeking to operate an abortion facility as well as the power to order the closing of any facility that it deems not in compliance with its regulations holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue holding that the board is not free to ignore its own regulations recognizing the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without interference from the state but noting that all abortion regulations interfere to some degree with a womans ability to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy thus the constitutionally critical concern is whether the regulations in a real sense deprive  women of the ultimate decision holding that unless remand from the bia is qualified or limited to a specific purpose an ij may consider any and all matters he  deems appropriate in the exercise of his administrative discretion or which are brought to his attention in compliance with the appropriate regulations