I would not change the law if I sat on the Supreme Court. Judges should not change the law. A Constitutional Admendment is the proper way to change the law, not judicial fiat.
There are three proper ways to change a federal law that come to mind right now. Congress can rescind it, a constitutional amendment can be ratified, or a federal court can void the law.
But you're dodging the question, which is asking if you think the USSC interpreted the Constitution correctly in the first place.
Why didn't we have a constitutional amendment making abortion a right in 1973, but instead a judicial fiat and you're telling us that you support the judicial fiat of 1973 (Roe v. Wade), that you would uphold the fiat as a judge, and that for us opposed to abortion or the fiat: we must amend the Constitution. Why must we amend to undo the judicial activism when the burden to pass such an amendment should have fallen on those that support abortion?