Canon Lawyer Ed Peters weighs in on the legal aspects here, but what I found interesting was his link to a Q&A from the Diocese in pdf here. I’ve been having a little trouble figuring out what procedure was used and noted this:
What if the treatment provided to the mother results in the death of her unborn child?
Certainly a physician should try to protect both lives equally. If the child can grow past viability and
then can be delivered, that is always preferable. If, however, a necessary treatment brings about the deathof the child indirectly it may be allowable. A Dilation and Curettage (D&C) or Dilation and Extraction (D&E), however, would never be such a treatment since it is the direct killing of the unborn child and is, morally speaking, an abortion.
which suggests to me that it was either a D&E or D&C. That also makes sense because Mark Shea linked a Commonweal article that made the jaw-dropping assertion that it was not abortion, it’s just surgically separating mother from child. That reminds me of a comment by Zippy that it is absurd to say “I didn’t run that red light. I merely refrained from pressing on the brake which is a morally neutral act.”