Of course, if you've been reading the story in the secular media, you've heard words about the "dying pregnant woman" whose life was "saved" by the abortion; you've also heard that the Church excommunicated Sister McBride, when of course as any Catholic realizes she excommunicated herself by participating in the brutal slaughter of an 11-week old human being.
Just so we don't lose sight of what we're talking about, here's a ten or 11-week old unborn child (image removed).
And here is video of a child about ten weeks of age. There are many more at that sight to look at, too.
I know that a condition like pulmonary hypertension would be complicated by pregnancy. But as far as the medical details, I defer to Gerard Nadal, who knows what he's talking about:
What we do know is this: An 11-week pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension was deemed in need of an abortion to keep the developing pregnancy from killing her. It’s a serious matter. The abnormally high pressure in the narrowed arteries of the lung make the heart work harder at pumping blood. The prognosis is usually poor, but there are several medications available to treat the condition. [...]So this is not like preeclampsia or hypertension of pregnancy, in which case the delivery of the child usually lowers the blood pressure fairly quickly. The pregnancy was not the threat to this woman--her pulmonary hypertension was. The pregnancy was a complicating factor, certainly, but killing the child did not "cure" the woman or save her from dying or any such hysterical thing.
First, the abortion is not akin to pressing a reset button for the pulmonary hypertension. There is no immediate (in minutes) rebound to pre-pregnancy physiologic status. [Emphasis added--E.M.]
I do have one minor quibble with Gerard; I think we need to stay away from the framework which suggests that because this happened in a place with plenty of secular hospitals willing to perform an abortion there was no need for the Catholic hospital to to so--because the flip side of this will come back to haunt Catholics, if under government health care Catholic hospitals in poor rural areas are coerced into performing "emergency" abortions. We can't ignore the peril of suggesting that simply because other willing executioners of this child existed the Catholic hospital was off the hook, so to speak; the Catholic hospital had an opportunity to lead the way by providing care for both the mother and the baby, and it failed utterly to do any such thing.
That said, I am sadly not surprised that a Catholic religious sister would apparently see no contradiction between her faith and vows on the one hand, and the slaughter of an innocent human being in utero on the other. There is, alas, no shortage of feminist nuns who completely lack any understanding or acceptance of the Gospel of Life, and are all too willing to adopt the "pregnancy-as-oppression" framework their secular counterparts push at every opportunity. I wonder whether the bishop, or any other responsible party, has inquired into whether the hospital in question routinely dispenses contraception, including the abortifacient variety; so many so-called "Catholic" hospitals do this, oblivious to the sin and scandal of it.
Despite the hysterical shouting from the media (who has never met an abortion it didn't love), Sister McBride's actions did not "save" anybody. Sister McBride has the blood of an innocent human child on her hands, and has cut herself off from the life of grace of the Church by her actions. How long she will chose to remain unrepentant and thus remain in the state of excommunication is up to her at this point. She is, of course, perfectly free to leave the Church altogether, which I suspect might only formalize an interior disposition cultivated long ago at the knees of the Moloch of our popular culture. Certainly any religious sister with the slightest familiarity with the Gospel of Life could not so cavalierly defend her decision to have an eleven-week-old child put to death for the crime of inconvenient existence.