Generally, canons deal with actions, not beliefs. The exceptions are the canons that target heresy, which is dealt with via anathema (excommunication until recantation, vs deposition/excommunication until the next confession, a set number of years, etc). There is no canon directly dealing with the immaterial "support" of abortion (ie, it is not defined as a heresy, not by itself), so the simple answer is that they can commune.Does the Orthodox Church allow Orthodox politicians to receive communion if they publicly support abortion?
I think the circumstances are taken into account. Just as sin isn't one-size-fits-all, neither is mercy and economia. It's a huge what-if, since the vast, vast majority of abortions are voluntary.And if it's unavoidable? I realize it's a small percentage vs. elective abortion, but what does the Church typically do in that case?
There are other cases, too, like when a patient being treated after a preterm rupture has signs of a severe infection. What matters most, however, is whether the patient was led to believe there was no reasonable choice. Judging from history, I don't think there could be any canons for that, and I don't know how it's done in practice... Mercifully, I hope.Ectopic pregnancies?
There is a large difference between not stopping something and endorsing it, and another large difference between endorsing it and participating in it. Generally, the canons only deal with active participation. There is no canonical penalty against, say, someone who does not run around with a pitchfork trying to stop abortions, nor is there a penalty for believing that the position of a secular political body should be one way or another on the matter, even if that decision may indirectly result in an increase in deaths.In the US anyway, most Orthodox politicians are GOA, so it doesn't matter anyway. @Bizzlebin , I would say voting in favor of any pro-abortion measure is an action that goes beyond mere partyline positions. Sure, they aren't in the abortionist's office with the forceps and vacuum, but they are voting to murder babies. Millstones around all their necks, I say.
And if it's unavoidable? I realize it's a small percentage vs. elective abortion, but what does the Church typically do in that case?
Actually, the very first canon from the very first Ecumenical Council can be used here. While it is immediately talking about male genitalia, its application extends to sins like tattooing and numerous other situations, too. In this case, the link is made between murder and external circumstance (and it acts as a corrective against the Cappadocians's writings about internal intents, such as in Ss Basil and Gregory, who get bogged down in questions over "voluntary" vs "involuntary" and who end up seemingly contradicting the Ecumenical Councils). That is, the same action can be either murder or self-defense based upon the external circumstances, and there is no guilt (not even *involuntary*, pushing back against the Cappadocians) in the case of self-defense, even if the action would otherwise be considered murder (and there weren't other alternatives). So, in the case of an embryo which is clearly attacking and harming the mother, a medical procedure to stop that assault is not only warranted, but carries not even a trace of guilt, canonical or otherwise—it remains a horrible tragedy, but one that canon law has nothing to say about.Ectopic pregnancies?