A Biden-era agency rule is still trying to smuggle abortion and other anti-life practices into a pro-mother law — and America’s Catholic bishops are refusing to back down.
Story Snapshot
- Federal regulators used the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to mandate workplace accommodations for abortions and other practices despite Congress omitting abortion from the law’s text.[3][4]
- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other ministries sued, arguing the rule violates both congressional intent and religious freedom protections.[3][4][5]
- A federal judge has blocked enforcement of the abortion-accommodation rule against the bishops while the case moves forward, and earlier vacated the elective-abortion mandate nationwide.[1][2]
- Republican lawmakers have filed briefs backing the bishops, warning that unelected bureaucrats are turning a bipartisan pro-mother law into a national abortion mandate.[3][4]
Bishops Back a Pro-Mother Law, Reject an Abortion Mandate
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was sold to the country as a bipartisan promise to protect pregnant women on the job by guaranteeing reasonable accommodations like extra restroom breaks, adjusted schedules, and time off for health needs related to pregnancy and childbirth.[3][4][5] The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) supported that core goal and publicly urged Congress to pass the law, describing it as filling a key gap for expectant mothers in the workplace.[5] That history undermines any claim that the bishops are anti-worker or anti-mother; their fight is specifically with a later regulatory twist that tries to insert abortion into a statute that never mentions it.[3][4]
The conflict began when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), implementing the law under the prior administration, issued final regulations in April 2024 that defined “related medical conditions” to include “having or choosing not to have an abortion.”[2][3][4] That interpretation meant employers could be forced to provide schedule changes, leave, or other accommodations so employees could obtain or recover from abortions, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization procedures.[2][3] Catholic ministries argue this is not a minor detail but a fundamental change, turning a pro-maternity law into what they call a de facto abortion-accommodation regime that collides head-on with their religious teachings and mission.[3][5]
Federal Courts Push Back on EEOC Overreach
In response, the USCCB, Catholic University of America, and several Louisiana dioceses filed suit in 2024, contending that the EEOC’s rule ignores congressional assurances that the law did not address abortion and instead stretches vague language to impose a mandate never debated or passed by elected lawmakers.[3][4][5] The plaintiffs also argue that forcing churches and religious schools to support or facilitate abortions through workplace policies violates longstanding conscience protections and the religious liberty principles that are supposed to shield faith-based institutions from government coercion.[3][5]
Federal courts have already delivered major setbacks to the abortion-accommodation rule. In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana vacated the portion of the EEOC’s rule that required accommodations for elective abortions nationwide, concluding that the agency exceeded its authority under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.[1] Initially, the court still allowed enforcement when abortions were tied to certain medical conditions like nausea, anxiety, or hormonal changes, effectively requiring accommodation for most abortions in practice.[3] Catholic ministries argued that this narrow victory still left them exposed to an ongoing conflict between their faith and federal demands.[3]
Expanded Protection for Catholic Ministries Amid Ongoing Appeals
On September 3, 2025, the same judge went further, issuing an order that blocks the federal government from enforcing the abortion-accommodation rule against the USCCB and other Catholic entities in any way that would require them to support abortions, contraception, sterilization, surrogacy, or artificial reproductive technologies that violate Catholic teaching.[1][2] The order forbids the EEOC from launching investigations or imposing penalties on these ministries for refusing such accommodations, and the protection remains in place while the broader lawsuit continues through the courts.[1][2] For now, that means Catholic bishops are exempt from accommodating all abortions and related practices that conflict with their sincerely held beliefs, not just those categorized as “elective.”[1][2]
Despite these wins, the legal fight is not over. The bishops’ challenge to the interpretation that the statute itself requires abortion-related accommodations is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where they seek a clear ruling that Congress never authorized such a mandate.[2][3] Separate litigation in district court addresses the rule’s treatment of surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, contraception, and similar practices, which Catholic plaintiffs say would force them to rewrite ministry policies, statements of faith, and even workplace “atmosphere” to align with an agenda they reject.[2][3][5] Religious liberty advocates warn that if this regulatory model stands, it could be replicated in other areas of law to pressure faith-based employers to conform to progressive social priorities.[3][5]
Conservatives Rally Against Bureaucratic End-Run Around Congress
Members of Congress have stepped in to support the bishops’ case, underscoring that the controversy is not simply a church–state dispute but a test of whether unelected bureaucrats can “flout the law Congress passed.”[4] In an amicus brief filed in May 2026, fifty Republican lawmakers argued that the EEOC transformed a bipartisan pregnant-worker protection into a sweeping national abortion-accommodations mandate that tramples conscience rights, including those of faith-based organizations that had backed the original law.[4] They emphasize that the statute’s text never mentions abortion, and that supporters on both sides of the aisle stressed it did not address that issue when the bill passed.[3][4]
Catholic University’s president echoed those concerns, warning that the new rule creates substantial liability for employers who maintain life-affirming workplace policies and that the final regulation watered down religious protections despite tens of thousands of public comments opposing the abortion expansion.[5] For many conservatives, this case has become a vivid example of how a law with a commonsense purpose—helping pregnant women keep working—can be repurposed by regulators into yet another tool to advance abortion, sidestep Congress, and squeeze religious employers. The outcome will signal whether courts continue reining in that pattern or allow agencies to keep stretching ambiguous phrases to undermine constitutional and conscience protections.[3][4][5]
Sources:
[1] Web – US bishops challenge ruling that requires abortion accommodations in …
[2] Web – NWLC Files Amicus Brief Defending PWFA Regulations from …
[3] Web – Catholic bishops seek to block PWFA rule requiring … – HR Dive
[4] Web – Catholic bishops appeal court ruling that would mandate abortion …
[5] Web – Amicus Brief: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC
