The essential fact in this Texas abortion case is this: that the purpose of the law was transparently to prevent women from exercising a right that the Supreme Court has declared that the Constitution grants them.
The idea that the law's purpose was to protect the health of women was clearly only a fig-leaf. The standards imposed were medically unnecessary. Rather, those standards were a means of imposing economic burdens on abortion providers so great that they would have to close, rendering many Texas women unable to gain access to a facility to provide the procedure to which Roe v. Wade had declared them entitled.
We Americans have a variety of rights under the Constitution.
But it is impermissible for legislators to put obstacles in the way of Americans' exercising some constitutional right simply because they don't like the right the Supreme Court has said we citizens are granted under the Constitution.
It is legitimate for opponents of a Supreme Court position to work to change what the Supreme Court says (Brown v. Board overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, for example, to get rid of a terrible "separate but equal" fraud legitimating Jim Crow segregation). But it is not legitimate for a state government to try to make an end run around the Court, and take away by majoritarian vote what the independent judiciary has declared to be a fundamental right.
As it happens, only Justice Kennedy of the four remaining "conservative" justices joined the liberal four in declaring the Texas law unconstitutional. It would seem that the other three were more concerned with their policy positions than with protecting the integrity of our constitutional system.
But then, that's not news. Shame on them anyway.