I will keep my eyes open for facts.
She did support a Human Life Amendment to the constitution. That also is a positive for me, but I do see your concern. You wonder if she, a pro-life Christian, wants the amendment because she can't think of a "legal" way to rule pro-life, given the weight that precedents are given in our legal system.
Right. But in general, my point is that being for a pro-life amendment doesn't really illuminate her social -or- her judicial philosophy on the matter. She needs to express WHY she holds that postion in terms other than "I don't like abortion."
She may privately advocate status quo, and publicly advocate the Con Amendment process because it is unlikely to be implemented. She may privately hold that abortion is wrong, but publicly rule that ROe & Casey are settled law, based on social reliance on de-stigmatization of abortion, etc.
In short, she hasn't advanced ANY explanation that illuminates how she might rule from the bench.