The Biden administration is instituting a new rule which claims to offer more protections for pregnant women in the workplace — but that new rule is being used to promote abortion.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is implementing more protections, due to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) taking effect this summer. Yet, as pro-life advocates feared, the legislation is being used to promote abortion in the workplace. Under the rule proposed by the EEOC, abortion is listed as a medical condition for which employees can request workplace accommodations.

The PWFA was meant to fill in the gaps between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), to lessen the occurrences of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. It was expected to cover things like flexible hours, more access to bathroom and water breaks, the ability to sit during jobs that require long periods of standing, closer parking spots, access to uniforms and safety apparel that will fit a pregnant woman’s body, and being excused from potentially dangerous job activities, such as heavy lifting or interacting with dangerous chemicals.

Yet now, some are claiming that the point of the PWFA, which passed with bipartisan support, is being subverted.

“These regulations completely disregard legislative intent and attempt to rewrite the law by regulation,” Sen. Bill Cassidy said in a statement. “The decision to disregard the legislative process to inject a political abortion agenda is illegal and deeply concerning.”

READ: A law to ‘fill the gaps’ in protecting pregnant employees may include abortion

The PWFA applied to pregnancy, childbirth, and “related medical conditions,” which the EEOC has now defined as including “lactation (including breastfeeding and pumping), use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, endometriosis, miscarriage, stillbirth, or having or choosing not to have an abortion,” and more.

In a statement, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) condemned the new rule as distorting the meaning of 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. 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,” the statement read.

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s proposed interpretation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 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. 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.”

The Biden administration is instituting a new rule which claims to offer more protections for pregnant women in the workplace — but that new rule is being used to promote abortion.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is implementing more protections, due to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) taking effect this summer. Yet, as pro-life advocates feared, the legislation is being used to promote abortion in the workplace. Under the rule proposed by the EEOC, abortion is listed as a medical condition for which employees can request workplace accommodations.

The PWFA was meant to fill in the gaps between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), to lessen the occurrences of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. It was expected to cover things like flexible hours, more access to bathroom and water breaks, the ability to sit during jobs that require long periods of standing, closer parking spots, access to uniforms and safety apparel that will fit a pregnant woman’s body, and being excused from potentially dangerous job activities, such as heavy lifting or interacting with dangerous chemicals.

Yet now, some are claiming that the point of the PWFA, which passed with bipartisan support, is being subverted.

“These regulations completely disregard legislative intent and attempt to rewrite the law by regulation,” Sen. Bill Cassidy said in a statement. “The decision to disregard the legislative process to inject a political abortion agenda is illegal and deeply concerning.”

READ: A law to ‘fill the gaps’ in protecting pregnant employees may include abortion

The PWFA applied to pregnancy, childbirth, and “related medical conditions,” which the EEOC has now defined as including “lactation (including breastfeeding and pumping), use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, endometriosis, miscarriage, stillbirth, or having or choosing not to have an abortion,” and more.

In a statement, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) condemned the new rule as distorting the meaning of 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. 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,” the statement read.

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s proposed interpretation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 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. 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.”