I think being an a abortion provider in countries where it is illegal is a totally valid form of civil disobedience, with the goal being to successfully provide services, not to be caught and convicted.
I think the discussion about civil disobedience is largely a straw man to steer the conversation in a certain direction.
The point of his actions in this case (if as described in the blog post, which hasn't been concluded) was to directly change the way the data was distributed and therefore better described as a 'direct action'.
Abortion when outlawed usually had separate laws (as far as I can tell), although the punishments were equally high.
Also pretty sure "civil disobedience" precludes violating criminal law vs. merely civil violations. The requirement is general non-violence, although that's more specifically "non-violent civil disobedience". Abortion or euthanasia are unclear if they're violent.