(LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is continuing its challenge of a Biden-era law that requires employers to support an employees’ abortion, recently asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to prevent the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from enforcing the abortion mandate.

The USCCB supported the law despite pro-life experts warning that it would lead to an abortion mandate, which the bishops now challenge.

Passed in late 2022, the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” ostensibly reinforced protections for pregnant workers, such as providing them reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

But pro-life experts, including Tom McClusky with CatholicVote, warned the bill lacked specific religious liberty protections (a final version included a religious liberty portion, but evidently, not a strong one). He said the law would require pro-life groups to provide employees time off for killing their babies.

The USCCB initially ignored these warnings but now finds itself suing to stop implementation of the law. Following passage of the law, the Biden administration released regulations interpreting the law to require employers to effectively support abortion.

Now the bishops, along with two dioceses and the Catholic University of America, want the law stopped.

In a joint brief, the Catholic groups argue that the law should include broader exemptions to the law. They also point to statements during debate over the bill where supporters, such as Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, say the law does not include abortion.

The brief argues:

Without permanent relief settling their rights and obligations, the Bishops face an unprecedented threat to their First Amendment rights from accruing potential liability and intrusive proceedings for failing to comply with the abortion-accommodation mandate.

… This liability includes potential threats under the False Claims Act, as some of the Bishops’ ministries receive federal contracts and grants that require them to certify and maintain compliance with federal law.

The bishops also say the law would violate their rights to not promote abortion.

In their filing, they argue the law requires “forced association with individuals who promote violating Catholic teachings,” which “would significantly impair the Bishops’ collective expression of the Catholic Church’s beliefs in the sanctity of life.”

“That’s why the Bishops do not allow speech or conduct encouraging abortions from their employees or faculty,” they wrote.

“This Court should reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the Final Rule’s abortion-accommodation mandate and unlawful construction of the statutory religious exemption, and enter permanent injunctive relief for the Bishops,” the May 18 brief concludes.

Bishops surprised ACLU-backed law includes abortion mandate

In addition to CatholicVote, other pro-life leaders sounded the alarm over the bill prior to its passage.

North Carolina Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx pushed for an unsuccessful amendment to include specific religious liberty protections in the law.

“Without the religious-organization protection, H.R. 1065 could force a religious organization to make employment decisions in violation of the organization’s faith,” Foxx warned in 2021.

And Rachel Morrison with the Ethics and Public Policy Center made similar warnings about the legislation in December 2022, before its passage.

Based on past EEOC guidance, Morrison warned:

It is almost certain that “related medical conditions” will be interpreted to include abortion, requiring all employers, even pro-life or religious organizations, to provide abortion accommodations. The federal government should not force any employer – pro-life, religious, or otherwise – to be in the business of facilitating abortion.

“Republicans and pro-life friends should not be so easily duped, or at least honestly weigh the costs along with the benefits of the act,” Morrison wrote in National Review.

Robert Marshall has a longer analysis in Catholic Culture that further explores the USCCB’s complicity and refusal to consider clear warnings about this law.