I'm curious what part(s) of her speech you found fault with. Being a resident of Michigan and having had followed these bills, the house Republicans have been rushing these bills and using their majority to silence opposition to the bills. They refused to allow a representative to speak on the amendment to a bill she introduced, which was displayed in the video. The bills go so far that all abortions, including those from rape, incest, and the health of the mother would be outlawed. The bills also will defund places like Planned Parenthood entirely, and create incredibly unreasonable insurance for any place (and the individual doctors) that would perform "legal" abortions prior to week 20. Her reaction was such, in my opinion, because these bills are incredibly detrimental to all Michigan citizens, especially women who aren't being allowed to speak in the House.
I read your first sentence, and I stopped, because I didn't want my initial knee jerk response to be tainted. This is strictly with regard to the video clip of the speech, no surrounding context. When I watched it, I put myself in the position of the politicians I know, most of whom are the types that poo poo overt emotion. What I was disturbed by, and I'm going to finish reading your paragraph after, was that when you have the attention of a large group of people who have the power to change things (and I assumed that these were the ones), you aren't going to accomplish much if your "awarded" time is spent with a speech, that is very largely fueled by emotion, and the content doesn't hold a lot of easily tangible form of logic. All that was really portrayed in the clip, was that she didn't support the decision, and that she was angry. You have that time, why not use it to present viable solutions.
Give them something they can work with.
Be assertive
1)present the problem,
2)let them know how it effects, or affects you (if necessary), and them,
3)present a viable solution, and steps needed to make it happen
4)state the consequences if the other party does not co-operate.
....
later (if you want to get anywhere)
5)follow through.
Babies are carried in the uteris, or more delicately put, the womb (sounds softer to non-medical types), not the vagina. To have mentioned her vagina (which was completely uncalled for), has a much greater sexual connotation. She felt her rights were violated, so she violates them back. You don't violate those that you are trying to appeal to.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
...
So, I read the rest of your post. I can see why she was so angry. That's even more reason to keep your cool, because she got that precious time to be heard. There is so much relevant material to choose from. I'm assuming that she brought up her religion because the bill was heavily influenced by religion? Anyways. What happens when you ban abortion? Not cessation of abortions, back street abortions, which means huge increase in fatalities, and trauma, crime, failed back street abortions resulting in heavily marred babies

.... more tip of the iceberg flash of what went through my mind. But it's the start of an explanation of why I cringed.