By contrast, the state’s defense of the rules was a bizarre and unconvincing show. Four of its five witnesses denied, and then conceded (when confronted with incriminating emails) that their written testimony was crafted by Vincent Rue, an opponent of women’s reproductive freedom best known for promoting kooky claims, like the existence of an abortion-related mental illness he calls “post-abortive syndrome.”

Mr. Rue does brisk business these days orchestrating testimony from pliable witnesses willing to supply “expert” support for state abortion restrictions, a task for which he has been paid $42,000, so far, by Texas. That his guidance is relied upon is incredible given that his own past court testimony and theories have been discredited by judges and others.

The state’s legal team is optimistic that it will prevail because a ruling last year by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the admitting-privileges requirement. But the surgical-center requirement was not part of that case.

As for the admitting-privileges rule, it was upheld based on assumptions that have since been shown to be inaccurate. One was the belief that qualified doctors could easily obtain such privileges. The other was that there would still be enough clinics in Texas so that women seeking abortions could get the procedure without traveling more than 150 miles. That turned out to be wrong. Nearly one million Texas women of childbearing age now live more than 150 miles from a licensed abortion clinic. Women in El Paso will soon be 550 miles away from the nearest abortion clinic. Women in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas already face a round-trip of between 400 miles and 500 miles.

One recent development offers hope for the Texas case. Last month, a different Fifth Circuit panel blocked a hospital affiliation requirement in Mississippi to avoid shutting that state’s last abortion clinic. That leaves Judge Yeakel room to call out Texas’ dishonest bid to crush a fundamental right.