Roe vs Wade Revisited

I have read many articles and posts decrying the right of the mother to an abortion. Finally, I have gone to the trouble to articulate a solution which actually addresses the law which has established “the right of the mother to an abortion.” Here it is:
I must ask of the utility of such arguments that abortion violates the fetus’s right to life. I suppose “doing something about it” must begin somewhere, and perhaps these arguments can be preparatory to such action.
The law allowing the abortion of fetuses does not arise from the usual legislative processes. The judicial system is not intended to be a legislative body, yet, it’s interpretation of the constitutionality of any law, itself, becomes new law, as though it were legislated.
The article you post raises some very important questions. But, I must ask: is it for mere complaint, or is it intended, or can it be used, for some positive action to change the law arising out of Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps it can.
If one examines he Supreme Court case of Roe vs. Wade, the right to abortion was fashioned out of a broader constitutional right to due process. Due process basically means that one cannot lose a constitutional right except by due process of law. The Supreme Court fashioned a constitutional right arising from the right of due process: the mother’s right to privacy. The focus then was upon the mother’s rights. In the various cases that followed that case, the notion of viability of the fetus arose: at the time of the abortion, is the fetus viable? If not, the mothers right to privacy, meaning right to abortion, trumps any right of the fetus to live; if already viable, the fetus’s right to live trumps the mothers right to privacy (to an abortion). From those cases, the general principle arose that a fetus shall be considered to be viable after the 1st trimester of the pregnancy, and not viable before 3 months. That made a very simple law that could be uniformly applied, without the necessity of individual determination of the specific fetus’s viability.
How does one change the Supreme Court’s “established law?” By another court case that raises new factors never considered by the Supreme Court previously, or meriting the Supreme Court’s re-examination of the prior issue.
All of the “right to life” articles and arguments against abortion focus upon the fetus’s right to life as opposed to the mothers “right to an abortion.”. If people want to make more than a mere argument for argument’s sake concerning the fetus’s right to life, they must “create a test case” framing it as an undecided, but compelling right, deserving of the Court’s consideration. It must then marshall compelling facts showing, not the sacredness of life, but the facts relating to that sacredness which accrue to the right of the fetus to survive.
One related issue that I seldom see, actually, never see or hear argued, is the infant’s right to nurture and sustenance once born. That has easily been avoided in the past by the argument against notions of the “welfare state.” It strikes me that that issue is as compelling, perhaps more so, as any argument for the right to life.