Good post, and don't disagree.
I think she followed the law here, and don't fault her decision for that. She is obligated to follow the law. I'm just flagging the strong possibility that her "I'm a judge, and I follow and apply the law regardless of my personal religious beliefs" bit may flip to "I am obligated to follow my faith, and how dare you question my choice -- which is sacred and inviolable and even criticizing me is anti-religion" when an abortion case comes up. My problem is the American (and, you know, islamofascist, if you're looking for an analog) tendency to use "faith" as a shield and a sword to do what what they want, and claim immunity from criticism or sanction because "how dare you tread on my religious beliefs!"
I actually have incredible respect for the RCC position on both abortion and the death penalty. They are morally consistent: they believe that 1) a human life is involved in both events, and 2) only God has the power to give or take human life. There are members and leaders in the church, with whom I may disagree politically, who I nonetheless respect morally on this matter because of the courage of their logical and moral consistency. These also happen to be the same people who do not couch abortion in terms of "bad choices" by women, etc. -- instead, they are there to offer support, love, and a path to adoption (I've seen it in action multiple times, from the perspective of the pregnant woman and the adopting family -- remember, I went to Catholic school for 12 years). Nothing but respect.
I just see too many Americans, almost entirely "conservatives," who now use "faith" as a shield to do what they want, and claim not just immunity from criticism, but immunity from an equal application of the law itself. Fuck that.