The latest US anti-abortion laws are a response to judicial activism

In 1992, the Irish Supreme Court had held in the X Case that a thirteen-year-old girl who had become pregnant as a result of rape could be permitted to obtain an abortion in the state because there was a risk to her life from suicide.  There were unsuccessful referenda in 1992 and in 2002 that aimed to further amend the Constitution so as to preclude this part of the decision in future cases.

On 25 May 2018, the Irish people finally voted in a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment and liberalise abortion. They approved the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 to delete the existing provisions and replace them with "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy".  Ireland therefore went down the road of referenda and legislation to determine its abortion laws.

Compared with the American approach of judicial activism, that has perpetuated a bitter abortion debate, the route followed in Ireland brought much greater community acceptance.  This is because decisions were taken by electors and by parliament instead of being handed down by the judiciary.

Judicial activism is mainly associated with the liberal left, and contravenes broad doctrines of the separation of powers.  Besides its effects enabling the judiciary to set laws (mainly in support of a liberal social agenda), judicial activism has also led to ruthless appointment/confirmation battles in respect of the highest judicial appointments in the US.  Examples have included the confirmation processes endured by Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.  Even in Australia, governments, when filling key judicial appointments, are now careful to largely appoint candidates sympathetic to the government's political view.

The only way to combat judicial activism, that I can think of, would be to seek the insertion of clauses into national constitutions related to their interpretation.  One possibility would be a clause requiring a narrow interpretation unless it was likely that a broader one was envisaged at the time the constitution or an amendment to it was constructed.

In my opinion judicial activism is not that much different to a (limited) bloodless coup d'état, except that there is no penalty potentially applying to offending judges.  In Australia a number of key judicial decisions (e.g. Mabo, Tasmanian dams) were said to involve judicial activism.  These are issues for another day.