Catholic bishops appeal court ruling requiring workplace abortion accommodations

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has appealed a federal rule that would force religious employers to provide accommodations for employees who undergo abortions.

Key Takeaways:

• The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has appealed a federal rule forcing religious employers to provide accommodations for employees who undergo abortions.

• The lawsuit contests regulations connected to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and seeks the blockage of the rule.

The Details:

On May 18, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other Catholic groups filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, requesting a halt to a federal ruling that mandates some employers to provide accommodations for employees seeking abortions in some situations. 

The lawsuit, titled United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), contests regulations connected to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act — a bipartisan measure implemented by Congress to guarantee workplace accommodations for pregnant employees and new mothers. The statute requires provisions such as restroom breaks, adjusted work schedules, and other accommodations for workers' pregnancy-related limitations. However, it also includes abortion as a reason for such accommodations.

The Catholic organizations contended that the pro-abortion rule would compel churches and other religious entities to change ministry policies, statements of belief, employee expression, and workplace practices in order to comply. Additionally, the Catholic organizations argued that the regulation jeopardizes religious protections guaranteed under the law and other civil rights statutes.

“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,” proclaimed Laura Wolk Slavis, counsel at Becket and an attorney for the 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 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."

The Backstory:

In May 2024, the USCCB, along with other Catholic groups, filed the lawsuit against the pro-abortion mandate, with aid from the religious liberty law firm Becket.

Although a lower court partially blocked the rule, it still permitted abortion accommodations in some situations, including cases entailing symptoms such as nausea, anxiety, or hormonal changes linked to pregnancy, the plaintiffs asserted. 

Also, the pro-life groups mentioned that the court refused to apply exemptions owing to religious freedom concerns, thus requiring them to abide by the pro-abortion mandate. 

In May 2025, a federal court decreed that the statute itself — independent of the implementing regulations—obliges the Catholic bishops and other Catholic entities to offer abortion-related accommodations only when a pregnancy gives rise to adverse health effects. Based on the USCCB’s lawsuit, these adverse effects can include grave pregnancy complications as well as more common conditions such as hormonal imbalances, anxiety, nausea, and vomiting.

Daniel Blomberg, a lawyer with Becket, informed EWTN News that several of the listed conditions applied broadly to virtually any pregnancy. He elaborated that the ruling obliges the Catholic organizations to not only allow for abortion-related accommodations in such cases but also to amend their internal policies and procedures to explicitly notify current and prospective employees of these provisions.

The Bottom Line:

This case is about more than one federal regulation; it's a litmus test of whether the state can redefine “pregnancy accommodation” in a way that makes abortion appear ordinary, necessary, or even compassionate.

Once abortion is enshrined in workplace policy, the next step is legal compliance and cultural regularization. This is a cautionary tale showing that abortion expansion often comes via bureaucratic interpretation instead of direct legislation, which makes vigilance over administrative agencies indispensable.