If a pedestrian style will do to communicate the words that will save tens of thousands of unborn babies every year, I will have nothing to say about that but YOU ROCK HARRIET!
Roe v. Wade isn't about whether or not abortion laws will be made. It is about WHERE they will be made.
Overturning Roe and its progeny only means the decision will be given back to the people, instead of being made in the courts. The good news is that at least you can attempt to influence your state legislators, but you can't influence the Court.
I wish I had your confidence in her conservative credentials. Yes, she has confided to one witness that she is pro-life. But I'm not sure whether that means she would have the guts to go against stare decisis and reverse Roe v. Wade and Casey, which is the kind of thing that needs to be done.
Or, given her frequent plugs on behalf of diversity, would she have the guts to reverse the recent constitutional-right-to-buggery decision? I'm not saying that there should be laws against homosexual activities, but I am saying that there's nothing in the constitution to this effect and that the matter should be settled by the voters and legislators, not the courts. Anything else is exceedingly dangerous.
Or would she reverse the recent findings supported by Sandra Day O'Connor that favor racial preferences and affirmative action in the universities? Again, I find that her writings point the other way.
There are several candidates who, we can be pretty certain, are reliable enough as constitutionalists to do these things. So, why take a chance betting on an unknown. Sure, she's Christian, but a lot of Christians are pro-abortion, whatever their creeds may say.