We must decide what role we want the courts to play, and elect representatives to government that will follow through.
Let's look first to the Constitution and its processes for guidence, and then decide if we need to amend it.
We are a representative democracy, essentially majority rule, with some caveats.
One of the components of our Constitution establishes the Supreme Court. Its duties were to adjudicate disputes between states, and between the states and the federal government. Marbury added judicial review to that task list. But we did not give the courts the duty of fashioning policy and law, that we reserved for the legislative branch.
One of the great characteristics of the Constitution is the balance between a representative democracy (majority rule) and the establishment of restraint of the power of the majority through civil rights. These rights are the subject of long and tortuous national debate, and are specific and explicit.
The balance hinges on a single concept: that only the majority can institute restraints on the power of the majority, thus popular voting to extend civil rights via the constitutional amendment process.
When the SCOTUS in Roe decided that they saw an implied penumbral right to privacy, they subverted this process. This decision should have been the subject of a national debate, and said rights should have been the result of public consensus. In taking this action to court may have arrived at the same end point that a national debate would, but instead they created precedent that has led to carnage of both our laws and our people, and that law contradicts other laws and policies on such topics as prostitution, organ donation, birthing for hire, drug use, suicide, contract law and limitations of all sorts, etc.