The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other Catholic groups appealed a court ruling that would require them to provide workplace accommodations for employees seeking an abortion in certain circumstances.
“In 250 years, our nation has never allowed the state to make the church support abortion — and now’s not the time to start,” Laura Wolk Slavis, an attorney for Becket who represents the Catholic groups in the lawsuit, said in a statement.
The lawsuit centers on a May 2025 court ruling that interprets the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) to include a mandate that employers must offer accommodations to employees for obtaining abortions if they are not fully elective.
The language of the PWFA itself does not mention abortion but instead requires that employers offer accommodations to pregnant women in the workplace. The USCCB supported the law, and its Senate sponsor, Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pennsylvania, with cosponsor Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, promised it would not require abortion accommodations.
In spite of this, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under former President Joe Biden imposed rules for PWFA that interpreted it as requiring abortion accommodations for both elective and nonelective abortions in April 2024, which prompted the USCCB lawsuit.
A federal court in May 2025 ruled that the law itself, regardless of what the regulations say, does require that the Catholic bishops and the other Catholic groups offer abortion accommodations if a pregnant woman is experiencing a negative health effect from the pregnancy itself but not if it is fully elective.
According to the USCCB lawsuit, such negative effects range from serious complications with the pregnancy to common pregnancy-related conditions such as minor or severe hormonal changes, anxiety, nausea, or vomiting.
Daniel Blomberg, an attorney for Becket, told EWTN News that some of the conditions listed are “literally the case for any pregnancy.” He noted that the ruling requires the Catholic groups to not only accommodate abortions in those situations but also to rewrite policies and procedures in a way that clearly communicates these accommodations to employees or prospective employees.
The court’s interpretation of the law, Blomberg said, forces Catholic ministries to “adopt anti-life employment policies and statements in the workplace” and would stifle the speech of anyone in the workplace who would discourage an abortion accommodation.
As interpreted by the court, the rule would “police the internal speech and even the atmosphere of the religious ministry” and it “radically transforms the requirements on religious ministries” as it relates to abortion, he warned.
Blomberg noted that the 2025 court ruling interpreted the law itself as creating this mandate — not simply the regulations that followed. He explained that this means President Donald Trump’s administration does not have the authority to overrule the court order by promulgating regulations.
He noted that the Department of Justice’s report on anti-Christian bias under Trump admonished the Biden-era PWFA rule, but “it remains to be seen how the administration’s lawyers will respond in court.”
The EEOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Wolk Slavis noted in her statement that other lawsuits against this PWFA interpretation led to stronger religious freedom rulings for other organizations that objected.
“Every other court to consider religious objections to this mandate has protected churches, and we hope the 5th Circuit does too,” she said.
