Judicial activism is altering laws according to what the judge likes, usurping a legislative role. The supreme court striking down state laws is the typical form of such abuse because the typical supreme court case is deciding whether a certain new law has a problem.

Roe vs. Wade is practically almost the same as a law that allows abortion, the other threatened precedents cited in the other comments are similarly almost laws that allow various rights, and so there is very little "upholding" of existing laws in this demolition and threatened demolition of "liberal" norms.

I've never heard such a limiting definition for judicial activism. It's typically understood more broadly as a criticism of American judges who, according to some, go beyond their duties of "interpreting law" and instead create it. To borrow from conservapedia (a resource I wouldn't otherwise defend, except in this limited case), it's "when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court."

I mean…no it doesn’t.

That’s nonsense.

Does that equally apply to gun rights ?

The states can ban abortion but not ban concealed carry.