I believe that US state and federal judges generally use sound legal reasoning when deciding civil suits, and I'm pretty sure that they don't take bribes, but I'm not a lawyer so I can't profess to be close to that whole process.
Sure it's true that if one party can't afford legal representation, the other party will have a better outcome. But that's not the case here.
Try and get an abortion in Texas for yourself or someone you care about and let me know how those precedents and legal arguments work out for you kiddo.
You edited the comment I responded to and removed the "precedent" related part, which is supposed to be an important part of US jurisprudence; discussing edited comments without original context/comment is pointless.
I believe I edited it before we went off on this tangent, but to be honest I can't be sure. Your comment was posted 40 minutes after mine, and I don't usually go back that late to edit my comments. If I did, I didn't do it intentionally.
Precedent is itself no more than an interpretation of law, in other words a line of legal reasoning that's already been ossified. I probably edited out the part about precedent because I felt it was redundant to "legal reasoning".
In any case, I don't see how "precedent" makes or breaks anyone's argument here.
Sure it's true that if one party can't afford legal representation, the other party will have a better outcome. But that's not the case here.