Bishops slam Biden administration for adding abortion to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

By Dave Andrusko

We wish it was not so—desperately wish it were not true—but Joe Biden has assumed the status of the most pro-abortion president ever.

At first blush, you might askisn’t that an exaggeration? Can he possibly do more in the pursuit of piling up more dead preborn babies than President Obama or President Clinton?

Actually, the answer is simple: yes.

Biden’s not just promoting the usual litany of activities that all pro-abortion Presidents gleefully advance. We’ve talked about that on many occasions. What I mean, rather, is the Biden Administration’s relentless determination to turn programs that even pro-abortion Democrats and pro-life Republicans can agree to into another pipeline for abortion.

Tyler Arnold, writing for the Catholic News Agency, fills in the detail to a story headlined “Bishops protest Biden administration’s addition of abortion to pregnant workers protections.”

He writes

Catholic bishops are criticizing the Biden administration’s proposed rules related to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that would force employers to make accommodations for women who receive abortions.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed Congress with bipartisan support in 2022, established new protections for workers who are pregnant or recently had a child. It requires that employers make reasonable accommodations for women based on known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions as long as such accommodations do not create an undue hardship on the operations of the business.

On Monday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proposed regulations that defined abortion as one of the “related medical conditions,” even though the law makes no mention of accommodating women who abort their children. “Under the draft regulations,” Arnold writes, “employers would need to accommodate women for limitations that arise from ‘having or choosing not to have an abortion.’”

In a statement. Bishop Michael Burbidge, the chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities. accused the EEOC of distorting the law.

“We supported the bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act because it enhanced the protection of pregnant mothers and their preborn children, which is something that we have encouraged Congress to prioritize,” Burbidge said. “The act is pro-worker, pro-family, and pro-life. It is a total distortion to use this law as a means for advancing abortion and the complete opposite of needed assistance for pregnant mothers.”

In other words, the proposed EEOC rules are contrary to the legislative intent.

“To include accommodations for obtaining an abortion is wrong and contrary to the text, legislative history, and purpose of the act, which is to help make it possible for working mothers to remain gainfully employed, if desired, while protecting their health and that of their preborn children,” Burbidge continued. “We are hopeful that the EEOC will be forced to abandon its untenable position when public comments submitted on this regulation demonstrate that its interpretation would be struck down in court.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the lead Republican co-sponsor of the legislation first passed in 2022, issued a statement that argued it was precisely because the law excluded abortion that the bill received bipartisan support.

“The Biden administration has gone rogue. These regulations completely disregard legislative intent and attempt to rewrite the law by regulation,” Cassidy said. “The Biden administration has to enforce the law as passed by Congress, not how they wish it was passed. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is aimed at assisting pregnant mothers who remain in the workforce by choice or necessity as they bring their child to term and recover after childbirth. The decision to disregard the legislative process to inject a political abortion agenda is illegal and deeply concerning.”

“The proposed rules will undergo a 60-day public comment period,” Arnold wrote, “after which the EEOC can either revise the rules or hold a vote on whether to adopt them.”