Yeah, "widely recognized contribution" and "enduring historical record" are kind of key phrases there. Check out the footnote to that line: "Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I think we can discount "historical record," and if she'd made a "widely recognized contribution" then presumably some sources would have discussed that contribution. As far as I can see, no one's done an article on her in her capacity of vice-chancellor of community relations, no one's done an article on her in her capacity of head of We're Really Against Abortion, no one's done an article in her in her capacity as author. No significant coverage, period.
I don't really know what you're getting at with "what she's notable for is being an activist - ie. having strong opinions and expressing them widely and there are plenty of sources on that." If there were plenty of sources on her and her opinions, they would be in the article, but there aren't. We know she's against abortion. Big deal, so are a lot of other people. We have an article on the "pro-life" movement because the "pro-life" movement's opinions are notable, that doesn't mean every individual person who considers herself "pro-life" is notable just for sharing a notable opinion.  (talk ⋅ contribs)