It is a little complicated:
Before proceeding further, the Court notes the limited scope of this case, this opinion, and the relief granted. This case does not involve creating a count of the representatives’ locations or second-guessing the House’s own count and listing of its members. Instead, the Court takes as true the House’s recitation of its proceedings and its designation of certain members as participating by proxy. Further, the Court makes no judgment on the wisdom of the House’s proxy rule, only its constitutionality as it pertains to counting absent members as part of the quorum. Nor does the Court address whether some members may permissibly vote by proxy if the constitutionally required quorum is otherwise physically present at the time of the vote. Finally, although the Court finds that the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act violated the Constitution, Texas does not seek an injunction of—and the Court does not enjoin—the entire Act. Rather, the Court enjoins only the application of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against Texas. The relief granted here is limited to abating the injury that Texas has proven will occur.
https://www.scribd.com/document/709363863/State-of-Texas-v-Merrick-Garland-Et-Al
I agree that typing on a keyboard isn’t a substitute for therapy. Writing can serve as an creative outlet for emotion in the same way as music or painting.