I don't think it is a case of different ideologies competing as she suggests, but about the government doing something that completely contradicts the evidence base - the outcome of which is one that feminists may feel is important (women having control of their reproduction and reduction in unplanned pregnancy). It seems a mad things to do just as things were starting to improve. I would be more worried about their condom messages, for example and do think in general that people on panels should prove they can understand and listen to real evidence in their field, not cherry pick in a dangerous way.
"You cannot call yourself 'pro-choice' and then bar people who disagree with you from expressing their view" - it is the form the expression takes that people object to, trying to control the government and harassing women at clinics. The pro-choice group do not try to enforce an opinion on others, so can't see a contradiction in her sentence beyond semantics. I also think people who expect the "pro-life" group to be as respectful to other groups are misguided - to them this will not be a chance to discuss things rationally but proof that they were right all along. We have seen this take off in America, so it seems sensible to be at least wary of the movement here.