Two major themes come to mind here.
[1] The real and practical power executive officials can have in the application of the law, especially in the current world. The stem cell ruling just handed down underlines that the law is often open-ended enough that there is a lot of individual discretion here. And, even if the discretion is used unreasonably, it will take a long time to address the subject by long drawn out lawsuits or legislative action that can be subject to executive vetoes or usual legislative delaying tactics.
[2] The day to day protection of reproductive freedom -- as highlighted as well by Rachel Maddow's segment last night -- can often depend on uneven application of fairly technical rules regarding medical procedures and such.
Before Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there were at least five votes on the Supreme Court to guard against this, especially when it took place early in the pregnancy. The understanding was there that this was not really a neutral application of state regulation of medical procedures, but singling out a certain procedure on moral grounds. In a way that intentionally or at least directly interfered with a woman's right to choose. Some felt the courts were micromanaging, but the justices knew what was going on, including swing vote, Justice Powell.
Casey opened the path to more and more regulations that do not nullify choice but make it more difficult and expensive (which does in various cases have the net result of denying a girl or women the ability to have an abortion), as here resulting in possibly closing down many clinics because the (needless) requirements are too expensive. The interpretation here sounds like the road to the next big case where the Supreme Court expressly upholds such impediments even for first trimester abortions. It won't block a single procedure, but inflict a result across the board.
The A.G. here can only wish to lead the way.