Well, there's a lot of grumbling about the Supreme Court potentially moving to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut. A number of Justices currently on the court don't seem super fond of that decision and it relates to the same concepts as Roe v. Wade. Getting rid of Griswold weakens Lawrence v. Texas, which eliminating that would immediately make homosexual sex illegal in several states.
In the U.S., that would be considered "case law" and is a corner stone of common law systems. There's statutory law, which is the law as written, then there is case law, which is the "found law" established by courts adjudicating and being bound by the precedents established in the process of doing so via stare decisis.
...That all goes out the window once your judiciary becomes an extension of the political apparatus of course. Once that happens, your courts will just start creatively reinterpreting what things mean to most effectively and comfortably bring about what they deem to be the way to go.
Hence why Roe v. Wade, while being a great thing, was ultimately bad jurisprudence.
There are already laws on the books in many jurisdictions, but they're not in effect at the moment because of this case law. The moment a case overturning Lawrence happens, the laws instantly go back into effect.
Also, if a state feels it's time to try it again, they might just go ahead and enforce this law to make this kind of a case happen again, hoping the SC comes to a different decision.
