Updated 5:28 p.m.: Revised to include comments from Texas Alliance for Life executive director Joe Pojman and Whole Woman's Health president and CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller.

AUSTIN — On the last day of testimony over Texas' fetal remains burial law, U.S. District Judge David Ezra of San Antonio warned attorneys to consider the law's impact beyond fetal tissue from abortions.

Not only are women who seek so-called elective abortions affected, he said, but women who have unwanted miscarriages as well.

"Even the most ardent and strident opponent of elective abortion has to understand SB 8 doesn't just apply to aborted tissue," he said. "It applies to spontaneously aborted tissue, a miscarriage."

The trial over Texas' fetal tissue remains burial law finished Friday in court, but lawyers still have to give closing statements next month.

Abortion providers originally sued the state health department in 2016 over a burial regulation that was blocked. The regulation was written into law through anti-abortion bill Senate Bill 8 last year. The plaintiffs argue that the new law puts an undue burden on women seeking abortion. The law requires providers to bury or cremate fetal tissue. It does not apply to miscarriages or abortions that happen outside a medical facility.

The state brought one last witness to the stand Friday morning. Michael Love, an Austin OB-GYN doctor, testified about fetal development with the aid of illustrations of embryos at different stages and a sonogram video taken of one of his patients. He said he believes life begins at conception and an embryo is its own entity.

"It has its own unique genetic makeup, which is totally separate from the mother," Love said.

Autumn Katz, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, questioned Love on his past efforts as an expert witness on anti-abortion legislation and terminology used in his expert report, where he compared a pregnancy to a foreign exchange student living with a host family, "for simplification."

"You referred to the women as the 'host organism,' is that correct?" she asked.

"That's correct," Love said.

Ezra asked attorneys for both parties to submit written closing arguments to him by next Friday. He outlined questions he wanted them to address in their arguments, including if there is a "failsafe" or backup for women needing health care if abortion and medical facilities shut down because of this law.

"This court is concerned with the constitutional right to abortion, and is also concerned with a constitutional right to receive health care," Ezra said. "If these clinics have to shut down because they are unable to deal with fetal tissue remains ... the majority of women who will be impacted will be women who have the non-elective, medical circumstance to have a miscarriage."

Ezra directed lawyers to also address a few other things: the state's authority to pass a law that purports to protect the "dignity" of fetuses; how many funeral homes, cemeteries and crematories agree to and will dispose of fetal remains; and how, under the equal protection claim, SB 8 is related to the state's interests if it does not apply to miscarriages that happen at home or embryos made in laboratories.

He also assured lawyers he has not decided the case yet.

"I can promise you your submissions, the work you've done in this courtroom, will be considered impartially," Ezra said. "I have an open mind and await your closing arguments."

Joe Pojman, executive director of anti-abortion organization Texas Alliance for Life, said the intention of the bill is not to add grief to women who miscarry, but the state has a legitimate interest in preserving the dignity of the "unborn child."

"In our view, and in the view of the state of Texas, there is a second person there," Pojman said. "It is incumbent on the state to ensure that the dignity of the person who has died is recognized."

He praised the attorney general's legal team and said though he's not certain how the judge will rule, the state did "as as good a job as possible defending this law."

Amy Hagstrom Miller is president and chief executive of Whole Woman's Health, one of the plaintiffs. She said the abortion clinic went to court to defend the dignity of Texas women and stop laws that shame abortion providers and patients.

"We have seen, time and again, how these politically-motivated restrictions on abortion interfere with a woman's relationship with her provider, limit her options, and infringe on her and her family's deeply personal beliefs and decisions," Hagstrom Miller said in a prepared statement. "Let's be clear: politicians, not doctors, created these restrictions, not to improve women's health care, but to push it out of reach. To that we say, not on our watch."