Catholic bishops sue Biden administration over abortion provisions in pregnant workers law

By Tyler Arnold

Catholic News Agency

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other Catholic institutions filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration over new rules that could require them to provide workplace accommodations for women who seek abortions. 

The lawsuit challenges regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) related to the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The Catholic University of America (CUA) and two Catholic dioceses joined the USCCB in the lawsuit. 

Although the law itself does not mention abortion, the regulations would require that employers accommodate women for workplace limitations that arise from “having or choosing not to have an abortion.” 

The law requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to women who develop workplace limitations from pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The EEOC rules consider “having or choosing not to have an abortion” as one of the related medical conditions covered under the legislation. 

The law itself also includes a prohibition on interference with the accommodations or retaliation against a person who uses the accommodations. 

The bishops express concern in their lawsuit that the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion could jeopardize pro-life speech from certain employers, as it could be seen as retaliation. 

Religious employers are subject to the rules, but the EEOC will consider requests for religious exemptions to certain aspects of the rules on a case-by-case basis. 

The bishops, who are represented by the legal advocacy group Becket Law, argue in the lawsuit that the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion accommodations must be declared invalid because it is “contrary to the [law’s] plain text and purpose.” 

“Intentionally ending a pregnancy is opposed to both pregnancy and childbirth, and is not a related medical condition to either,” the lawsuit states. 

It further argues that the religious exemption is insufficient because addressing those requests on a case-by-case basis would ensure “religious defendants could never know ahead of time if they would face liability for exercising their rights.”