Let’s ask a more radical question: is the Roe decision (or more properly, the Roe opinion) constitutional or not? Few of us even think to ask such a question any more. But the lawmakers in these states evidently are asking, or rather answering "no, it isn't." If Roe is unconstitutional, they have every reason to enact anti-abortion laws. And they should, for the reason you mention, to keep pressuring the SC to overturn the Roe atrocity. It’s worth recalling that Roe struck down the laws of all 50 states! Once the Court decrees that it has discovered a new right (such as the abortion license), or reaffirms it many times, it doesn't become the duty of the states to shut up and follow the Court’s error. Especially not when there has not been a day since Roe was handed down when protest against it hasn’t taken place. By Lincoln’s criteria in his First Inaugural Address, Roe has never had precedentiary authority as an interpretation of the Constitution. If many states enacted laws along the lines of these five, the Court might have no little difficulty sustaining the indefensible.
But what about super-duper-luper-precedent?
