Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority and concurring opinions in the ruling striking down Texas' sweeping abortion restrictions. The law threatened to leave the second most populous state in the country with fewer than 10 abortion providers, but a majority of the justices ultimately sided with Texans, who need reproductive health care (and providers, and major medical organizations, and physicians, and, you know, people who can read copious evidence about the safety of abortion).
Here are the key parts of the ruling.
The Texas law served no medical purpose, and placed an undue burden on people seeking abortion services.
And forcing clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers (mini-hospitals, basically) is medically unnecessary.
Like, it did not improve the quality of care for people seeking abortion services even a little bit.
Meanwhile, shuttering clinics through unnecessary regulations does not benefit women's health.
Because less clinics = less access to healthcare, even if Texas and the dissenting justices tried to argue otherwise.
And by the way, Texas was not persuasive in arguing that it needed to close down all but eight clinics in the state.
Like that time when they couldn't name one instance in which admitting privileges (business agreements with hospitals) helped a woman obtain better care.
Not only is abortion very safe, but reducing the number of clinics may force people to seek unsafe abortions.