If you read the article carefully, it explains that the court orders are to allow a non-custodial parent or non-agreeing parent of a minor who wants an abortion to have one, hence the court order. The story was concentrated on a DHS in Philly's alleged pressuring its ward to have the abortion. The city paid for the abortions, not the state or the federal government since it was elective. The girl had to go to NJ since she was 24 weeks pregnant and PA cannot perform an elective abortion at that degree of pregnancy.
In effect the judge did not so much "order" anything, rather he allowed something in an order. That is very, very different from ordering as the Original Poster seems to indicate. A judge's "order" can be just permission for something to occur, not a mandate for a concrete action. Remember, this was all about a ward of the state and the rights of an individual and those of the non-custodial parent. In balance, the judge ruled what was the law, and allowed the 16 year old to decide.
Do I agree with the morality of it all? No, especially if a neutral party such as a DHS worker was pressuring in one direction, but the facts are the facts and matters of law, no matter how distasteful and objectionable they be.
Perhaps you should be riled with the NJ legislature and courts and Pennsylvania DHS and city funding of late term elective abortions than at the judge. Frankly, they really within the neutral eyes of the law ordered no actions, only permitted them under the language of the Roe v. Wade decision and subsequent statute and case law regarding minors and parental permission.