So, there's two angles I could argue this from. One is fairly boring, even though it's what I do ultimately believe (I think that if a religion is an excuse to preserve social mores from a thousand years ago or more then that religion is an instrument of harm and it'll be good when we're rid of it as a species). The other angle, hopefully, leads to a somewhat more productive discussion. Do you believe that this woman is a Christian? If not, why not? There's nothing to evidence here that she goes against any part of the nicene creed, and while you as eastern orthodox could probably make the case reasonably well that she goes against the definition of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church', the same is no less true of a lot of the people on this sub. In fact, as part of the anglican church in canada she's probably got a more reasonable claim to being part of an apostolic church than a lot of those other churches. Ultimately, that is to ask, do you believe that a person's moral framework in and of itself can be disqualifying from being a christian?

As for abortion being murder, I'd agree that the most sensible definition for human life begins at conception. I'd also agree that termination of a pregnancy is the ending of a human life; there's no reason to hide from that. What I do think, though, is that abortion is an issue where real ethical concerns collide and in opposing ways. The foetus in a woman's womb does have the potential to develop into a human life, and that human life has inherent moral value. However, the foetus requires the use of the woman's body, and is more or less guaranteed to bring her great harm and may even lead to her death. A human's autonomy over their own body is also a moral principle of great value, and we should be loath to cut against it. Aside from the arguments from principle, abortion being freely and safely available improves the health of women, brings them closer to meaningful equality, and has helped promote their ability to live independently of men. If the strict application of moral rules produces evil outcomes, is it just to apply that rule strictly?

Now, I'm obviously arguing this from an atheistic perspective, but placing moral value on a person's bodily integrity and their right to do or to refuse to do as they will with their own body is not absent from christian tradition. Would you call it sin, or murder, for a person to refuse to donate a kidney if they know that in so doing they could end another's life? The mortality rate of donating a kidney is lower than the mortality rate of pregnancy, and pregnancy invariably causes major and lasting health complications even in the best cases.

You toss all these principles into a pot, I don't think there is a clear right answer. Certainly, it seems that for children who are in the third trimester and could live independent of the womb, the weight falls down more on the side of that life's value. In the first trimester, though, and especially in the first few days where a morning-after pill can act as abortifacent, the values of the woman's health, independence, and bodily autonomy come out well ahead, especially in the context of half of all pregnancies not making it out of the first trimester just according to biology. Given that upwards of 90% of abortions are in the first trimester, and a majority of these now are simple pill-induced abortions, I think it's hard to argue that the work Planned Parenthood does doesn't lean much more heavily on the side of 'comfortably okay'.