A federal judge has ruled that Catholic employers can’t be forced to accommodate requests for abortion and fertility treatments, upholding religious freedom while igniting a heated national debate over healthcare rights.
At a Glance
- Federal Judge Daniel Traynor permanently blocked the EEOC from enforcing certain worker protections for abortion and fertility care against more than 9,000 Catholic employers
- The Catholic Benefits Association argued that EEOC guidelines would force them to act against their faith
- The ruling impacts approximately 164,000 employees in Catholic health plans
- Critics claim the decision undermines women’s rights while supporters praise it as a victory for religious liberty
Court Sides with Religious Freedom
In a significant victory for religious liberty advocates, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor of North Dakota has ruled that over 9,000 Catholic employers are exempt from federal regulations requiring accommodations for workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. The ruling makes permanent an injunction that blocks the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from enforcing these rules against Catholic organizations. The case highlights the ongoing tension between religious freedom protections and expanding healthcare mandates under federal law.
Catholic Organizations Challenge Federal Mandates
The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Benefits Association and the Bismarck Diocese, who challenged the EEOC’s interpretation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This bipartisan legislation passed in December 2022 with support from both political parties and even backing from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, controversy erupted when the EEOC’s implementation guidelines expanded the law’s scope to include protections for gender identity and abortion-related accommodations, which Catholic groups viewed as a direct assault on their religious principles.
“The combined effect of EEOC’s pronouncements is that they require CBA Members, contrary to their Catholic faith, to accommodate their employees’ abortions and immoral fertility treatments, to use false pronouns when requested by transitioning employees, to abstain from expressing Catholic teaching regarding sexual issues, and to give employees of one sex access to private spaces reserved to those of the other sex.” the association and the diocese said.
The Catholic Benefits Association represents over 9,000 Catholic employers with approximately 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans. These organizations argued that the EEOC rules effectively forced them to violate core tenets of their faith by requiring them to facilitate procedures and accommodate requests that directly contradict Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and human sexuality.
Judge Cites “Precarious Time” for Religious Liberty
Judge Traynor, who previously served on the board of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, has a history of rulings that favor religious freedom in similar cases. In his decision, he expressed concerns about the current climate for religious liberty in America, describing it as increasingly hostile to people of faith. His ruling represents a significant pushback against what many religious organizations view as governmental overreach into matters of faith and conscience.
“It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America. It has been described as a post-Christian age. One indication of this dire assessment may be the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.” Traynor wrote last year.
Attorney Martin Nussbaum, who represented the Catholic organizations, praised the ruling as a protection for both religious freedom and free speech. Bishop David D. Kagan of the Bismarck Diocese expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating simply: “The Court has upheld our religious freedom rights and that is all we ever wanted.”
Critics Warn of Impact on Workers’ Rights
The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from advocacy groups focused on women’s reproductive rights. A Better Balance, a legal advocacy organization, condemned the decision as an attack on women’s rights and reproductive freedom. Critics argue that the exemption creates a dangerous precedent that could allow employers to deny essential healthcare services based on religious objections, potentially leaving thousands of workers without access to care they may need.
The ruling creates uncertainty about the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which remains in effect for most employers across the country. The EEOC, under new leadership, may now seek to revise its rules and guidelines related to the Act. This ongoing legal battle reflects the broader national debate over the appropriate balance between protecting religious liberty and ensuring access to comprehensive healthcare services.
