The celebration among Texas abortion rights advocates over Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling may be short lived given that state’s lawmakers’ promise to revisit the Lone Star State’s abortion laws as soon as they return to session. Notwithstanding such threats, however, the court ruling sends a sound message not only to Austin, but to the many states where legislators continue to chip away at abortion rights.

The court’s 5-3 decision found that the Texas anti-abortion law, cloaked in the pretext of protecting women’s health, simply does not pass constitutional muster. The court ruling tossed out two elements of a 2013 Texas law called HB 2 that was one of the most stringent abortion regulations in the country and had left many worried about a return to risky, black market abortions.

One of the stipulations ruled unconstitutional required abortion doctors to have hospital admitting rights and the second required all clinics, including those providing only non-surgical medication abortions, to meet the standards of surgical centers.

“Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote in supporting the majority. She quickly pointed out the fallacy of this argument, however: “Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements.”

The evidence is clear the law severely restricted Texas women’s access to safe, legal abortions. Texas had 41 facilities that provided abortions before the law passed, but that number dropped to 22 after HB 2 took effect. Many other facilities were left in a state of limbo in which closure appeared likely.

Abortion rights advocates said the reduction in the number of facilities that already occurred, along with even more that were threatened, forced women to travel for hours, wait unreasonable lengths of time for appointments or cross state lines for the legal procedure. Many women, especially teenagers and those who are poor, do not have a surplus of time and money and as such, the dearth of legal options serves to boost the number of risky, self-induced abortions.

The bottom line is that abortion remains legal in the United States. There is no caveat that right extends only to those with the financial resources to travel.

While the ruling was a victory for abortion rights, it also makes a point important to those on all sides of the abortion debate. The Supreme Court rulings carry great weight and all U.S. citizens impacted by the court’s decisions deserve a full contingent of justices weighing in on each decision.

It also shows the importance of the coming election when it comes to the makeup of the Supreme Court. This appeared to be a clear case of a law that violated the rights established under Roe v. Wade, yet three conservative justices found a way to ignore precedent in finding it constitutional.

Texas and other like-minded state legislatures appear set on continuing to find ways to erode Roe. Given a future test case, and a two-person swing on the court in the conservative direction, and long accepted reproductive rights could be endangered.