Intervention to end an ectopic pregnancy is considered an abortion by contemporary Catholic ethicists, albeit an indirect one, if the procedure is a salpingectomy—i.e., removal of the fallopian tube in which the embryo has implanted. If, however, the embryo itself is removed and the fallopian tube is not, that constitutes a direct abortion. Likewise, if a drug (methotrexate) is used to dislodge or kill the embryo, that is a direct abortion.

The question of what the Church teaches about ectopic pregnancy is an interesting one. Apparently the last official word came down in 1902, when the CDF was still the Holy Office:

To the Question:

“Whether it is at any time permitted to extract from the womb of the mother ectopic fetuses still immature, when the sixth month after conception has not passed?”

The reply is:

“In the negative, according to the decree of Wednesday, the 4th of May, 1898, by the force of which care must be taken seriously and fittingly, insofar as it can be done, for the life of the fetus and that of the mother; moreover, with respect to time, according to the same decree, the orator is reminded that no acceleration of the birth is lict, unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered.”

From the reply of the Holy Office to the Dean of the faculty of theology of the University of Marienburg, March 5, 1902.

Sometime in the 1930s, a Catholic ethicist named T. Lincoln Bouscaren came up with a rationale for intervening in an ectopic pregnancy. (Briefly, if you perform a salpingectomy, you’re not intentionally removing the embryo. You’re removing the damaged fallopian tube. The removal and death of the embryo is a foreseen but unintended effect.)

That reasoning has been very widely, but not universally, accepted among Catholic ethicists. To the best of my knowledge, nothing contradicting the 1902 Holy Office decree has come from the Vatican. So I wouldn’t say it is the official teaching of the Church that a salpingectomy is licit in the case of ectopic pregnancy. But given how these things work (as I understand them) Catholics are free to follow the consensus of Catholic ethicists, even though no high-level Vatican organization has evaluated and approved Bouscaren’s rationale.

I can’t help but wonder, however, if Bouscaren’s reasoning is compelling (I believe he had some doubts about it himself) or if the thought of putting women at risk so cruelly when intervention was so easy influenced ethicists to accept a weak argument.

one that ended an ectopic pregnancy

Well, to be more precise, some ways of ending an ectopic pregnancy are “opposed to pro-life Catholic teaching”. From the article, it appears Blanchard had a fallopian tube and ovary removed. That’s allowed.

But removing the fetus while preserving the fallopian tube is not.

Halappanavar was suffering from a condition called septicaemia

Again, some precision is called for. Investigations – plural – are ongoing, but the timeline as reported by the husband seems to indicate she contracted the septicaemia from being in dilated labor for over 48 hours. If her husband’s account is, in fact, accurate, then her death very probably was caused by the failure to terminate in a timely manner.

Perhaps his recollections are not accurate. But it’s a little early to just assume they are.