I wasn’t born when Roe v Wade took place, so I can’t answer to it. This issue is one on state sovereignty. I don’t see how a State could pass a law like this, asserting sovereignty, only to have SCOTUS beat it back.
My impression, when reading these articles, is that the States wish for legal exemption from Federal regulations. If they can’t do that, then why would they even try?
Please consult Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. If Congress occupies, or partially occupies a field of law, state laws that conflict are unconstitutional. States are issuing “shots across the bow” to warn off Obama against new gun laws, in my view. Btw, there is much you can read about Roe even though you were born after it!
Roe v Wade pertained to a Texas law denying abortions and was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
As the SCOTUS found the right of women to have abortions in the Constitution where it doesn’t exist, they could well find that the 10th and 2nd do not apply to the states. They’re wrong, but they make the rules. So far anyway.
IMHO this subject is about state sovereignty and is backed by the Constitution.
If I had to guess - and it’s ONLY a guess - I’d say there are some state legislatures and officials who see the writing on the wall as far as the extremist policies coming out of this administration and are taking steps now to keep the FEDS in check. Just a guess.