âThe EEOC exceeded its statutory authority [and] unlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress,â wrote U.S. District Judge David Joseph.
A federal judge in Louisiana has blocked enforcement of a rule in two states that required employers to provide accommodations to employees who want to undergo elective abortions, with the judge siding with plaintiffs who argued that abortions arenât âmedical conditionsâ that employers must facilitate.
The EEOC âexceeded its statutory authorityâ in issuing the rule and âunlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress and encroached upon the sovereignty of the States Plaintiffs,â wrote Judge Joseph.
The temporary relief, which applies to Louisiana and Mississippi until a final judgment is entered in the case, blocks the EEOC from initiating any investigation into claims that a covered employer failed to accommodate an elective abortion that is not necessary to treat a medical condition related to the pregnancy.
The injunction also prevents the EEOC from taking any action that would allow employees to pursue legal action against their employers for not accommodating elective abortions.
The EEOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the preliminary injunction.
The Lawsuit
The subject of the legal challenge was a final rule was issued by the EEOC in April implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in a way that included abortion in the definition of âpregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.â
While the EEOC said that it recognized these objections as âsincere, deeply held convictionsâ that are âoften part of an individualâs religious beliefs,â it said that it also received many comments in favor of including abortion in the definition on the premise that abortion is a ânecessary part of health careâ and that the religious beliefs of an employer âshould not dictate an employeeâs ability to receive a reasonable accommodationâ for one under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
EEOC said in the note that the âreasonable accommodationâ called for in the rule would not include requiring an employer to pay any travel-related expenses for an employee to get an abortion but would be limited to granting an employeeâs request for time off to get the procedure done and recover from it.
The EEOC said that its decision to keep the abortion provision was consistent with its own interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that prohibits an employer from discriminating against employees based on sex, race, religion, national origin, color, and pregnancy.
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups, sued the EEOC over the rule, which was slated to go into effect on June 18. They argued that inclusion of abortion under the definition of pregnancy-related medical conditions was an attempt to hijack the provisions of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to impose a national abortion exception.
âThe Biden Administration continues to re-write laws in ways Congress never intended, which violates the United States Constitution,â Ms. Murrill said. âWe are grateful the District Court blocked the rule.â
âWe appreciate the courtâs thoughtful opinion and look forward to working toward a commonsense implementation of the Act, which would accommodate pregnant women while respecting state laws to protect life,â Ms. Fitch said.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin expressed disappointment in the ruling and said in a statement to media outlets that he is âconsidering all legal options and [remains] confident we will ultimately be successful.â
Original News Source Link – Epoch Times
Running For Office? Conservative Campaign Consulting – Election Day Strategies!