Reply #1: Thank you. Here is a bit from the pdf (judge's ruling) from your link...

[uppityperson]

Plaintiffs argue the Act “violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by subjectingabortion patients to visual, verbal, and auditory depictions of the fetus that they do not want, and donot consent to receive, and that are not part of the accepted and ethical process of informed consent.” For the following reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument on this point.

(clip)
The Act does not compel physicians to apprise women of the risks inherent in abortion,inform the women of available alternatives, and facilitate access to additional information if the women wish to review it before making their decisions; existing Texas law already compels such speech by physicians, in conformity with Casey. Instead, the Act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen. These factual differences persuade theCourt that Casey does not foreclose Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to the Act.

It does not require a tremendous creative leap to imagine a lawsuit in which such a certification would be not only discoverable, but also probably admissible at trial.