The federal judiciary does not work like that.
Judges don't use the that line of reasoning when they approach a case.
A jurist doesn't say to himself, "I'm a Pentecostal, or an evangelical, so therefore I must have an expansive view of the 'free exercise' clause."
A judge who is a gun-owner won't necessarily be less susceptible to the notion of gun ownership as a collective right than one who has never touched a firearm.
It doesn't matter if someone personally finds abortion to be reprehensible, and viscerally opposes it.
If that person can not find the essential underlying defects of Roe, and explain why it is such a fundamental breach of the Constitution, then her pro-life perspective is irrelevant to the larger cause of eliminating this atrocity, or curtailing it significantly.