The article, if true, describes a rather shameful process in which one researcher/advocate apparently took it upon himself to not only coordinate the work product of expert witnesses, but often to write reports for others then provide to them as a "draft" of their own work product. And the witnesses represented these reports as their own work.
Shameful conduct, to be sure.
On the other hand, let's take a look from 10,000 feet up and see what's happening here.
The people of Texas, speaking through their elected representatives, abhor the practice of abortion, and want to make it as difficult as they can, given the current constraints of "Constitutional" law . Under current "Constitutional" law, a state may not prohibit abortions until the fetus becomes "viable" (a baby), but may regulate them during the second trimester, in the interest of protecting the mother's health. The state may not Constitutionally consider the life of the baby until it becomes viable.
Parenthetically I would point out that, as with most things in our fucked up, liberal-dominated court system, the "viability" question has been virtually eliminated, and "legal" abortions are now performed right up until the time when the baby takes its first breath. It's nothing short of infanticide.
So Texas wrote a law that places serious burdens on abortion clinics, requiring them to be virtual maternity hospitals with critical care capabilities. And most abortion clinics in Texas couldn't meet the standards, so had to close down, thus making it more difficult to obtain an abortion in Texas.
The law has been challenged, basically, because it is not truly intended to protect the health of the mother, but rather it is intended to dramatically reduce the number of babies being killed through this barbaric ritual of abortion. The law is probably unconstitutional.
But to say that there are no health benefits to not killing babies? Talk about your "junk science."