I am pregnant. Anti-discrimination law might actually harm women like me
As a proud mother of seven beautiful children and going through her eighth pregnancy while working full time, I vehemently oppose the so-called Fairness for Pregnant Workers Act.
You might be surprised to wonder why a working mother would object to something that, on its face, protects women like me from discrimination in the workplace.
In practice, however, the law’s vague terminology regarding “related medical conditions” could require employers to cover abortion leave and related expenses under federal law. Not only that, but the law also appears to lack protection for religious or pro-life Americans who might object to covering expenses that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.
According to the text of the law, it is unlawful for a covered entity to “fail to make reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee, unless this covered entity cannot demonstrate that the development would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the activities of this covered entity.
Such vague language regarding “associated medical conditions” has rightly concerned many Americans, especially in light of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood’s ardent support for the law.
Accommodations for abortion care should not be mandatory
A memo from the National Women’s Law Center recently raised similar concerns, boasting that the law could cover recovery time after an abortion and that “an employer could be required to change an employee’s schedule to give her the time to attend a doctor’s appointment related to pregnancy or childbirth. – for example, to combat postpartum depression or to have an abortion.
Just recently, our worst fears were confirmed when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued proposed regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that could require U.S. employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” for pregnant women wishing to have an abortion.
Which state is next?Ohio voters just sent Republicans a message on abortion. To fear.
What about religious employers or those whose consciences oppose having abortion covered for their employees? The law appears deliberately designed to discriminate against these types of employers and individuals, who can and likely will be forced to submit to lengthy, costly, and painful legal proceedings to defend their religious freedom.
As the National Women’s Law Center memo concedes, employers of religious institutions can refuse accommodations, but “only in limited circumstances.” Is religious freedom a “limited” right?
Working mothers deserve legitimate accommodations
Precedent indicates that for abortion rights advocates, such a religious right makes no sense – especially when it would protect pro-life advocates and opponents of the far-left abortion agenda.
During five of my own pregnancies, I suffered serious complications that compromised my ability to work for a period of time.
Liberty wins with SCOTUS decision:Web Designers’ Supreme Court Ruling Is a Victory for the Right to Free Speech
Unfortunately, all evidence points to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as yet another example of abortion advocates hiding under the guise of “helping pregnant women” and using this legislation as a Trojan horse for extreme and discriminatory regulations .
For me, and for many working mothers I know, the law’s requirements that employers make “reasonable accommodations” for us could make a big difference in the years to come.
However, lumping together abortion care and pregnancy-related accommodations will inevitably invite some employers to question whether women like me with serious complications who refuse to terminate their child are actually asking for “unreasonable accommodations.” » outside the scope of the Pregnant Workers’ Equity Act.
We’ve already seen this push from big companies like Amazon, Bumble, and JPMorgan, which are happy to pay for abortion accommodations for their female employees.
The mothers who will bear the next generation of Americans deserve the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as it was originally intended – as a support measure for pregnant women, not women who terminated their pregnancies .
I refuse to support any policy claiming to “protect women” with an ideological extremist side. I will fight hard against the so-called Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – and you should too.
Erika Ahern is an associate editor at CatholicVote and co-host of “LOOPcast.”
USA Today
