The EEOC has proposed a new rule that will force most businesses to accommodate abortions for their employees. You can contact EEOC to express your thoughts about this proposed regulation before it becomes official.
Last year the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act became law. The new law ensures that all businesses with 15 or more employees provide “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant women. The goal of the law was to expand rights for pregnant women and mothers in the workforce.
Now the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is twisting the meaning of this law by including elective abortion among the “conditions” employers must accommodate.
The proposed exemption for religious organizations is so narrow it’s hardly reassuring. And what if your business isn’t explicitly religious, but you still oppose abortion? Too bad. Under the EEOC rule, you’ll still be forced to accommodate abortions.
“These regulations completely disregard legislative intent and attempt to rewrite the law by regulation,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who sponsored the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act along with Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). “The decision to disregard the legislative process to inject a political abortion agenda is illegal and deeply concerning.”
Moreover, Sen. Casey previously assured his fellow senators that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would not be used to cover or promote abortions. Clearly, the Biden administration is attempting to further its radical pro-abortion agenda any way it can.
We’ve provided a sample comment to get you started, but keep in mind that the EEOC is more likely to consider your comment if it is not a duplicate. Feel free to use our sample comment below as a starting point and adjust it to reflect your exact thoughts.
I support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) wholeheartedly, and believe pregnant workers need the additional protections enumerated in the law. However, I oppose the EEOC’s proposed regulation includes “having…an abortion” in required accommodations under the PWFA. Here are three reasons behind my opposition.
First, I worry that employers will pressure their employees to utilize abortion-related accommodations rather than more long-term pregnancy accommodations. This would be the exact opposite of the PWFA’s intent. Many women in America have been fired after requesting reasonable pregnancy accommodations. Others have been pressured by employees to end their pregnancies, because there are still too many companies who view funding an abortion as more attractive than the longer-term commitment of accommodating a pregnant employee’s health needs, or funding maternity leave. As written, the PWFA would help to end these injustices. With the abortion accommodations, the PWFA becomes less effective.
(By the way, Sen. Bob Casey, a co-sponsor of the bill, told fellow senators last year, “Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act … the EEOC could not—could not—issue any regulation that requires abortion leave, nor does the act permit the EEOC to require employers to provide abortion leave in violation of state law.”)
Second, I worry that American business-owners with a sincere (though perhaps non-religious) opposition to abortion will be forced to violate their consciences under this new regulation.
Finally, I am concerned that slipping abortion into the PWFA’s required accommodations post-legislation will backfire, making future laws benefiting pregnant workers unlikely to pass. The PWFA achieved bipartisan support—a rare feat today—but that support was conditional on the promise that the bill would not be used to force businesses to support, accommodate, or fund abortions. Congressional Republicans will be less likely to support legislation benefiting pregnant workers in the future if they believe the law will later be used to promote abortion—and that is a result no one, pro-life or pro-choice, should desire.
Please enforce the PWFA as it was intended—to expand protections for pregnant workers. Thank you for reading my comment.