An interesting point and one worth considering. We naturally sympathize with this women because we agree with her views, but the law has to enforced neutrally. If it's illegal for someone to walk into her church and pass out pro abortion literature, then it's just as illegal for her to walk into an abortion clinic and solicit for pro-life counseling services.
I think where the Judge got it wrong was the tone. He should have calmly explained the arguments you and me just made. Then told her she must stay away from the Clinic. Then when she refused, he should have said that although he admired her convictions and regretted having to do it, he would have to send her to jail, just as he would do to someone doing the same thing in her church that refused to stay away.
I could not disagree more. The law must be enforced equally, but never neutrally. Law is the authority of and for the civil magistrate and the civil magistrate is the minister of God (Romans 13). The judge may think he is god, but that matters little to reality. for example I may not believe in gravity after all I cannot see it, and in my disbelief I jump off a tall building. My belief or lack of belief will not matter when gravity propels me to the Earth and I a make an impact. The judge is not above God, he is not a god, he is under God and will answer to Him. His duty is first to God and them to civic law. He may not agree, but one day he will - like or not.
Almost any law is properly set aside in application if there is a life-saving necsessity, and this is recognized in law. I don't know what the principle is called in Canada, but in US law it is called a "necessity defense" or "competing harms defense."
For instance: say you look into a parked car on a day when the temperature is 85 degrees, and see a baby in the back seat with the windows all closed and the doors locked, the the child sweat-drenched, red-faced and apparently unconscious. You can smash open a window, unlock the door, and take the child out of the car, before you even call 911. You could carry the baby into te nearby ER, or try to revive him yourself.
Ordinarily smashing the window of somebody's car, orening their locked car door, and removing their child against their express will would be property destruction, trespassing, abduction. Illegal. In this case, however, police would not arrest; charges would not be made; juries would not convict; judges would not sentence.
It doesn't even have to be for the sake of saving a child's life. You could even do it for a valuable dog.
There as a series of cases in the USA (IIRC in St. Louis in the 1980's) where pro-life defendants were acquitted on just these grounds. It should be so everywhere.