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.
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'.
For a description of 'direct action', see the third paragraph of the first page in this book: http://books.google.se/books?id=W15vhV6EiSQC&pg=PA1
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.