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.”

“The end result stacks the decks against religious employers: In EEOC’s view, the agency could normally be sure that it would have a compelling interest sufficient to override religious defenses,” the lawsuit adds.

The lawsuit also states that the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion goes against legislative intent. It cites several lawmakers who supported the legislation saying that the EEOC could not interpret the law to mandate accommodations for abortions. One lawmaker cited is Sen. Bob Casey Jr., a Democrat from Pennsylvania, who sponsored the Senate version of the bill.

“Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the [EEOC] could not — could not — issue any regulation that requires abortion leave, nor does the act permit the EEOC to require employers to provide abortions in violation of state law,” Casey said on the Senate floor in December 2022. 

Laura Wolk Slavis, one of the lawyers representing the bishops, told CNA that the law “does not mention abortion at all.” She said it is intended to ensure employers provide accommodations “related to a woman being able to have a healthy pregnancy and a healthy childbirth.” 

“This law was meant to be a very simple, uncontroversial law that all Americans can and should support,” Slavis added.

The EEOC’s regulations, she said, is an attempt to “hijack that law and turn it into something fundamentally different.”

Slavis also said the EEOC’s decision to address religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis means the bishops and all religious employers are “forced to comply right now” and do not know whether they will receive exemptions when requested. She said the EEOC “interpreted that exemption so narrowly that it means nothing.”

CUA President Peter Kilpatrick said in a statement that the university provides accommodations for pregnant workers but that the abortion accommodation requirement conflicts with the university’s mission.

“The Catholic University of America community remains steadfast in our commitments to upholding the sanctity of life and supporting women and pregnant mothers in the workplace,” Kilpatrick said.

“We firmly reject any suggestion of tension between those two core commitments. We can — and we do — support women as they grow their families, and we believe it is possible to do so wholeheartedly while also supporting the dignity of life at all stages. Our mission to cultivate a culture of love, respect, and compassion demands nothing less.”

When reached for comment, the EEOC referred CNA to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.