If you ask me, passing obviously illegal laws should come with mandatory restitution to those harmed when they're overturned. For extra fun, take the funding out of the paychecks of everyone who voted for the malignant bill. It'd be a good lesson in civics for the people responsible for the abuse.
Can you imagine if state legislatures just started passing bills every few years that restrict e.g. freedom of the press? It wouldn't matter what the constitution said because it takes time for the laws to get challenged in the courts. In the meantime, the press isn't allowed to report on the abuse of the system or, worse, is shut down, either by corrupt officials or due to inability to profit in an environment where they can't report anything meaningful. Maybe they can sue for damages afterward... if they still have the resources to do so. What's the purpose of even having a court if the legislature just ignores its decisions and the courts can't undo the damage those invalid laws have done?
That's similar to what's happening here. Abortion clinics take significant resources to operate. Did Alabama pass this bill to try and test Roe v Wade given the new makeup of the court? Probably, but that's not the only reason. A large part of the reason they, and others, pass bills like these is because it forces abortion clinics to shut down. They don't even care if it gets overturned because it accomplishes their goal of shutting down abortion clinics either way, although I'm sure they'd like it to get overturned. It doesn't matter to them whether their law is legitimate or not, their primary goal is to cause abortion clinics to close and prevent abortions.
What we have here is elected officials, people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, abusing their station to pass laws that (in the best reading of the situation) suit their moral viewpoint. That this is being done by people who wrap themselves in the flag and call themselves patriots is even more disgusting to me. Regardless of my personal thoughts on abortion and how it should be handled by the law, deliberate abuse of the legal system is unacceptable; our social order relies on peoples' belief in the legitimacy of our systems. If you swear an oath to uphold the law of the land and then break that oath, you don't get to call yourself a patriot.
This is why I think we need some kind of punitive measures for laws that are obviously and deliberately passed in the face of existing legal precedent if it can be proven that such a law causes direct harm to existing people, businesses, or organizations. The Alabama legislature here is acting in blatant conempt of court, and if the courts can't undo the damage these invalid laws do, they should at least hold responsible those passing the laws. If Alabama disagrees with Roe v Wade, they can bring a case against it if they can argue from some unique legal perspective that hasn't already been explored; otherwise, the correct path for the legislature to override a judicial decision is through a constitutional amendment. "Just keep passing laws that fly in the face of precedent and see if something sticks" is not (or at least should not) be a valid tactic and should come with real consequences.
As far as the issue of abortion itself, I think abortions should only be permitted if it can be argued that there is a strong case that it would improve the wellbeing of the mother (or potentially some other kind of mitigating circumstance). However, this is less important to me than the abuse of the law, because while abortion does affect a lot of people, it doesn't threaten the integrity of the legal system itself. Its potential impact is, therefore, comparatively limited.
Abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the USA Constitution so when Elected officials or anyone says that its a "Constitutional Right" are either lying or are blatantly ignorant.
You are correct that it is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the US Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution in its station to pass binding decisions regarding the constitutionality of laws. In Roe v Wade, it ruled that abortion violates a woman's constitutionally implied right to privacy. The right to privacy is also not a constitutionally enumerated right, and yet it is a right that our courts have recognized. You may wish to reread the Bill of Rights, as you will stumble upon a certain amendment which states the following:
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
A right does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be retained by the people; this is guaranteed by the Constitution itself. So while you are, again, largely correct that it is not a "Constitutionally [stated] right," the right to privacy has been found by the US Supreme Court to be a right implicitly granted by the Constitution. Moreover, the US Supreme court is empowered in its station by the Constitution itself to determine what is or is not meant by the Constitution. Therefore, the right to privacy
is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, even if it is not explicitly guaranteed, as are
all rights recognized by the US Supreme Court.
The oath to office varies from state to state, but I believe that
all of them swear to uphold both the State and United States Constitutions. The exact text of the Alabama oath of office specifically is as follows:
Alabama Oath of Office said:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and Constitution of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office [office] upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.
So, to pass a law knowing full well it violates a right recognized as constitutionally guaranteed by the courts is most certainly a violation of this oath. Moreover, the blatant disrespect for the decisions of past courts and the authority they carry appears to me to be contempt of court, and I believe it should be recognized and enforced as such.
