In a recent public comment period regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulation, it was revealed that the vast majority of commenters are opposed to the proposed mandate that would require employers to accommodate workers’ abortions under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
During this 30-day comment period, a total of 63,330 comments were submitted to the EEOC. Among these comments, approximately 75% were submitted by Catholics and their allies who objected to the regulation.
The director of Governmental Affairs at CatholicVote, Tom McClusky, emphasized the significance of this figure, stating that it is “incontrovertible evidence” of the overwhelming rejection of the EEOC’s regulation by politically-engaged Americans. This public feedback illustrates that Americans do not support efforts to force employers to accommodate abortions, as it is fundamentally different from supporting women through pregnancy.
The PWFA initially aimed to ensure that employers provide reasonable accommodations for limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions. However, the Biden administration’s EEOC has used this as an opportunity to propose broader regulations, expanding well beyond the scope of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions to include mandatory accommodations for abortion.
Furthermore, the EEOC’s regulation omits the terms “woman” and “mother” from the PWFA, aligning with the administration’s radical gender ideology agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has also proposed a regulatory change that eliminates traditional gender-related terms from childcare-related laws.
One glaring issue with the regulation is its lack of robust conscience protections. While it suggests that religious employers may be exempt from accommodating abortions, it fails to address the concerns of non-religious employers with moral objections to such accommodations.
The EEOC’s agenda extends beyond abortion-related matters. It is currently proposing guidelines for employers that equate “mis-gendering” employees with sexual harassment. By including “reproductive decisions” about contraception and abortion, as well as “sexual orientation and gender identity” within the definitions of sex-based harassment, the EEOC sends a clear message to employers with Judeo-Christian values that they are on notice. This places them at risk of legal action for religious objections to using incorrect pronouns in the workplace.
If these rules on sex-based harassment are broadened to include issues related to pronouns or “dead-naming,” religious accommodation protections for employers under the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII would be effectively nullified.
Moreover, the EEOC has targeted religious employers in its amicus brief filed in the 7th Circuit case Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute. While the law assigns the agency with combating sex discrimination, it twists its mandate to accuse the Moody Bible Institute of “gender discrimination” for enforcing the use of men’s bathrooms by male employees.
In conclusion, although employers who resist the Biden administration’s ideology are likely to prevail in court based on their First Amendment rights, the lengthy and costly litigation process can be used as a form of punishment. This tactic is aimed at discouraging employers, even those fully protected by the First Amendment, from pursuing legal action due to the financial and time-consuming burden it imposes. The EEOC is well aware of this fact and shamefully exploits it to further its ideological agenda.
