Lawsuit continues to challenge Biden-era regulation adding abortion to pregnant worker protections

Lawsuit continues to challenge Biden-era regulation adding abortion to pregnant worker protections May 19, 2026By Kate Scanlon OSV News Filed Under: Feature, News, Respect Life, World News WASHINGTON (OSV News) — A group of Catholic ministries asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit May 18 to block a federal agency from enforcing an abortion provision in regulations meant to add workplace protections for pregnant workers. In 2024, religious groups filed suit in United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC, to challenge final regulations for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that granted workers protections for time off and other job accommodations for pregnancy-related medical conditions such as miscarriage, stillbirth and lactation. However, those regulations also included abortion, which some of the bill’s supporters, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, argued was not Congress’s intent in passing the law. Becket, a Washington-based religious liberty law firm, filed that lawsuit on behalf of the USCCB, as well as The Catholic University of America and the dioceses of Lake Charles and Lafayette in Louisiana. Laura Wolk Slavis, counsel at Becket, said in a May 19 statement, “Bureaucrats tried to twist a bipartisan law protecting pregnant women and their unborn babies into a mandate that churches facilitate abortion within their own ministries.” “If there’s one thing everyone should agree on about abortion, it’s that Uncle Sam can’t make Mother Teresa support it,” she said. The EEOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The regulations at the center of the lawsuit govern the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, bipartisan legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Joe Biden in December 2022. The law prohibits employment practices that discriminate against making reasonable accommodations for qualified employees due to their pregnancy, childbirth or “related medical conditions.” The law went into effect in June 2023, and final regulations to implement the law, which defined abortion as among those related conditions, were published in April 2024. A lower court partially limited the provision, but in a new filing on May 17, the Catholic groups argued that the limitation was “little more than lip service” and that the 5th Circuit should take further action. “While the district court initially enjoined EEOC’s attempt to read that exemption into a nullity,” the filing said, it later “retreated” and “left the Bishops exposed to civil liability and intrusive litigation.” “The Bishops are facing an unprecedented mandate requiring them to either malform their ministries or violate federal law,” the filing said. Wolk Slavis added, “In 250 years, our nation has never allowed the State to make the Church support abortion — and now’s not the time to start.” “Every other court to consider religious objections to this mandate has protected churches, and we hope the Fifth Circuit does too,” she said. More broadly, three years after the law’s passage, its protections for pregnant workers are still unevenly met by some corporations, The New York Times recently reported. read more respect life Supreme Court leaves in place mail-order distribution of mifepristone during legal challenge New Senate bill aims to protect privacy for charitable donors following pregnancy center case Makary out as FDA commissioner after tumultuous tenure, pro-life criticism As Planned Parenthood defunding nears expiration, USCCB pro-life chair backs bill to block funds ‘Congratulations!’ What moms want to hear in facing challenging or unexpected pregnancies Supreme Court hits brakes on court ruling that blocked abortion pill distribution by mail Copyright © 2026 OSV News Print

Facts Only

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), The Catholic University of America, and the dioceses of Lake Charles and Lafayette in Louisiana filed a lawsuit in 2024 against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The lawsuit challenges regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which was signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022.
The PWFA prohibits employment discrimination against workers needing accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or "related medical conditions."
The EEOC's final regulations, published in April 2024, included abortion as a "related medical condition" under the law.
The Catholic groups argue that Congress did not intend for the law to cover abortion.
Becket, a religious liberty law firm, represents the plaintiffs in the case, titled *United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC*.
A lower court partially limited the abortion provision but did not fully block it.
On May 17, 2026, the Catholic groups filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, seeking to block enforcement of the regulation.
The plaintiffs claim the lower court's ruling left them exposed to civil liability.
The EEOC has not responded to requests for comment on the appeal.
The PWFA took effect in June 2023.
The New York Times reported that corporate compliance with the PWFA's protections for pregnant workers remains uneven.

Executive Summary

A coalition of Catholic ministries, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), The Catholic University of America, and two Louisiana dioceses, is challenging a federal regulation that interprets the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) to include abortion as a "related medical condition" requiring workplace accommodations. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, argues that Congress did not intend for the law to cover abortion when it passed the bipartisan legislation in 2022. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued final regulations in April 2024 defining abortion as a protected condition under the PWFA, which took effect in June 2023. A lower court partially limited the provision, but the Catholic groups contend the restriction was insufficient, leaving them vulnerable to legal liability. They have now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to block enforcement. The plaintiffs argue that the regulation forces religious institutions to facilitate abortion, violating their beliefs. The EEOC has not publicly responded to the latest filing. Meanwhile, broader implementation of the PWFA's protections for pregnant workers remains inconsistent across corporations, according to recent reporting.

Full Take

This dispute hinges on the interpretation of a bipartisan law and the extent to which federal agencies can expand its scope—a classic tension between legislative intent and regulatory authority. The Catholic plaintiffs present a strong steelman: their argument rests on the claim that Congress explicitly excluded abortion from the PWFA’s protections, and that the EEOC overstepped by including it. The framing of the regulation as forcing religious institutions to "facilitate abortion" taps into deep-seated concerns about state coercion of conscience, a narrative with historical resonance in religious liberty debates.
Patterns detected: **ARC-0024 Ambiguity** (the term "related medical conditions" is inherently broad, allowing for competing interpretations), **ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey** (the EEOC's broad definition of "related conditions" could be seen as a motte, while the specific inclusion of abortion is the bailey).
The root cause here is the unresolved cultural and legal conflict over abortion’s status as healthcare versus a moral issue. The PWFA’s bipartisan passage suggests broad agreement on protecting pregnant workers, but the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion reveals how administrative agencies can become battlegrounds for unresolved political divides. The implications extend beyond this case: if religious institutions can be compelled to accommodate abortion under workplace laws, what other contested procedures might follow? Conversely, if religious exemptions prevail, how might that affect access to accommodations for employees in faith-based workplaces?
Bridge questions: What evidence exists that Congress explicitly considered and rejected abortion’s inclusion in the PWFA? How might this case influence future regulatory interpretations of "related medical conditions" in other laws? If the 5th Circuit rules in favor of the Catholic groups, what precedent would that set for religious exemptions in workplace accommodation laws?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign might amplify the narrative of government overreach to rally religious voters, framing the EEOC’s action as an attack on faith. However, the content here focuses on legal arguments and procedural history rather than inflammatory rhetoric, suggesting a genuine legal dispute rather than a manufactured outrage playbook.

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The text exhibits the structure and specific detail of human-written legal reporting, focusing on procedural facts and attributed statements rather than abstract synthesis.

Signals Detected

Sentence length variance is erratic, reflecting direct legal reporting and quoted material.

The text maintains strong coherence by following a clear legal timeline and attributing specific claims to named legal counsel and organizations.

The inclusion of multiple, disparate headlines at the end suggests a wire-copy or aggregated news feed structure, which is characteristic of human media compilation rather than pure LLM generation.

Specific dates, court filings (May 18, 2026; May 17), and legal names are highly specific and grounded, reducing fabrication risk.

Human Indicators

The text successfully integrates highly specific legal citations and direct quotes from named legal counsel, demonstrating a level of detail and specificity typical of human reporting.

The structure is that of a news report compiling ongoing litigation, blending procedural steps with the core conflict.