I read through the full ruling this weekend and found it not quite so one-sided as it's been presented. In particular the judge recognized that a certain subset of residents do face a "somewhat heavier burden" under this law, including those born out of state, the elderly, and the infirm. He then notes that he cannot do anything about this since the petitioners sought broad relief for all voters rather than something more narrowly focused just on those who are most burdened.
I'll also say that it appears the Pennsylvania law is the best I've seen in terms of accommodating those most likely to be disenfranchised. First, it accepts a much broader range of IDs, e.g., student IDs, unlike some other states. Further, not only does it provide free IDs for those most burdened, but they essentially mitigated the whole birth certificate issue (for those born in PA) by giving their DMVs the access required to directly verify birth information. This still requires a trip to a DMV office, but at least it can all be done in one trip and the poor aren't burdened by the cost of a certified birth certificate.
Finally, for those born outside Pennsylvania, there is apparently something new coming called "DOS ID". The ruling states this will also allow a substitute for the certified paper document. This does assume the State of Pennsylvania's implementation of the law will be fair and non-partisan, but there are additional remedies available should that become an issue. In the meantime, it looks to me like Pennsylvania has done almost everything it can to minimize disenfranchisement while still adding an extra layer of (pointless) security. It's not such a blatant voter suppression law unlike other states.