Two, the plaintiffs in the case argued the law violated Georgia's Constitution but the judge did not rule on that but instead on the US Constitution. It reminds me of Roberts's ruling on Obamacare. A judge should not substitute a plaintiff's plea, a judge should not change roles and advocate for the plaintiff.

It sounds to me like this Judge wanted to avoid the State Constitution issue and found a questionable way out. If this was indeed a trigger law that intentionally avoids any ex post facto issues because nobody was denied previous abortion rights until after the current SCOTUS ruling took place.