EDITORIAL: Stripping Rights, Dimming Futures: The Dangerous Retreat on Pregnancy Accommodations

Removing abortion accommodations from the EEOC’s PWFA rule isn’t just legal nitpicking. It signals a troubling rollback of women’s rights that echoes broader attacks on gender equity.

Natalie C. Frank, Ph.D June 1, 2025

Bossy.it [CC BY 2.0]

When the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a portion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2024 rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), it had consequences far beyond the court’s papers. What Judge David Joseph vacated on May 21, 2025, wasn’t merely legal text. It was a significant piece of progress that tethered reproductive health to workplace fairness. That slice of the rule required employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, which the EEOC interpreted to include elective abortions. Now that part lies in tatters.

By removing that provision, the court didn’t authoritatively state whether abortion is a pregnancy-related condition deserving protection; rather, it concluded the EEOC “exceeded its statutory authority” when it included it. The ruling relies heavily on the major-questions doctrine, asserting that Congress would have “spoken clearly” if it intended abortion to fall under such protections, especially in the fraught post‑Dobbs era. But this leaves millions of women adrift, facing the chilling reality that seeking fundamental medical care could cost them their jobs.

This judicial retreat doesn’t occur in isolation. It’s part of a wider pattern in which women’s legal gains are being quietly dismantled. Take, for instance, recent efforts by Trump administration apparatus to rewrite voting rules. In several states, new regulations now require women to present birth certificates for voter registration that match their “current legal name”, ignoring the reality of married names, name changes in LGBTQ+ communities, and non-conforming familial forms. Administrators claim these measures prevent fraud, but in truth, they erect unnecessary barriers. Similarly, limiting abortion accommodations isn’t about clarifying the law. It’s about erecting invisible obstacles that women, particularly low-wage workers, must navigate alone.

Removing abortion provisions from the PWFA rule means that employers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and under Catholic institutions are no longer legally obligated to provide leave or scheduling flexibility for pregnancy terminations. That may not sound monumental in statistical terms, but for individual women, it can mean forced unpaid leave, job loss, or clinical risk. Moderate needs like time off, alternative seating, or lighter duties now carry the weight of uncertainty.

Beyond the legal and practical impacts, this ruling sends a chilling signal: women’s bodies and decisions can be excluded at the stroke of a pen. What made the PWFA historically significant was its recognition that pregnancy is not a barrier to work. It ensured that pregnant employees, who are overwhelmingly women, could request reasonable accommodations without undue hardship to their employer. With this partial rollback, we are narrowing the circle of who qualifies for support, excluding women who exercise bodily autonomy outside childbirth.

We shouldn’t be naive. This rollback fits a broader playbook: use legal technicalities to marginalize rights. Think about voter-suppression tactics aimed at married women whose names don’t fit bureaucratic expectations. Think about judicial rulings that limit abortion access through technicalities rather than open debate. These tactics don’t just restrict access and they shift power. A barrier here, a procedure there, a legal vacuum over there, and suddenly women are managing a minefield just to stay employed or to participate in civic life.

What also stands out is the role of political machinations within the EEOC itself. In January, former President Trump fired two Democratic commissioners before their terms ended—reshaping the agency to a Republican majority poised to “revisit” or dismantle enacted regulations. That calculated restructuring wasn’t accidental; it was a prelude to precisely this kind of rollback. It shows how fragile agency protections can be when subjected to political winds. The agency lost its quorum, and its new leadership immediately signaled intent to erase abortion-friendly regulations.

Conservative states see this as a victory for “states’ rights” and “religious freedom.” Religious minorities see it as a shield for conscience exemptions. But to many Americans—particularly women of reproductive age—it reads as a step backwards on gender equity. Why is elective abortion any less a medical necessity than morning sickness or infertility treatments? Indeed, the EEOC’s 2024 rule explicitly covered those as reasonable accommodations. Choosing to remove abortion from that list is not medical prudence; it’s political choice disguised as jurisprudence.

Look at other cases: in some states, judicial rulings demand women rename their legal identity on vital documents—again, a bureaucratic unilateral decision masquerading as public interest. These regulations disproportionately impact not only married women, but also transgender women, indigenous women using traditional names, and immigrant women with complex name histories. In each instance, legal structures treat these identities as liabilities rather than facets of lived experience. Similarly, stripping abortion-related accommodations says we can’t trust women to decide when to extend or retreat their bodies from work obligations.

The broader implication is clear: this is not a debate about statutory interpretation, it is about who we trust to make personal decisions. Are we saying that employers should inconvenience themselves rather than supporting a pregnant or post‑abortion woman?

In contrast, employers accommodated those undergoing fertility treatments, dealing with nausea, or needing physical support at work. But remove abortion from that set, and you’re suddenly implying it’s a fringe issue, not integral to pregnancy or postpartum care.

The journey toward equitable workplaces began with Title VII in 1964, evolved through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, and culminated in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in 2022. Each legislative milestone acknowledged the inherent physical inequality that pregnancy presents and mandated accommodations. Straw by straw, we created a structure that let women thrive professionally without sacrificing their health. Now, this structure is under attack. The court’s scissors may have clipped only a portion of regulation, but the thread it cuts is foundational: medical autonomy is NOT a luxury.

Beyond the workplace, we’re staring at a philosophical shift. In requiring matching birth certificates, disallowing reproductive health supports, and limiting civil rights protections, the message is that women’s bodies are subject to oversight from bureaucracies, religious entities, and employers alike. That’s not accommodation. It’s curation of female lives by outside powers.

There is, however, room to fight back. The PWFA itself remains law. State protections can bridge gaps. Women must be ready to challenge interpretive rulings that omit abortion from related medical conditions. Conservative states may have banned abortion, but federal law still empowers women to seek fair treatment at work. That empowerment depends on activism, legal literacy, and sheer resilience.

What should women, families, and workplaces do next? They must press the EEOC to reintroduce abortion accommodations under different rulemaking, with clearer statutory language, bipartisan support, and safeguards against political interference. Congress, too, can revisit the statute, expressly including abortion as a covered condition. Any voter who believes in gender equity must support legislators pushing that agenda.

Ultimately, this is about what we want our country to be. If we truly value women’s economic security, we have to stand against incremental policies that chip away at rights. When we look back, we must ask: did we let bureaucracy unwind progress? Or did we say loud and clear that women’s fundamental rights cannot hinge on judicial reinterpretation, administrative appointments, or partisan maneuvers?

What happened on May 21 wasn’t a legal necessity. It was a political strategy. Its reverberations will ripple through workplaces, families, and civic structures. If we allow abortion accommodations in pregnancy protection laws to be dismantled, we signal a willingness to allow further rollbacks, on maternity leave, on inclusive health care, on any acknowledgment that women’s bodies matter.

Stripping this provision is not just legal formalism; it is erasure of women’s lived experiences. It is a silent form of silencing. And yet, in that silence, women continue to insist on their rights to health and dignity. We must begin with restoring these protections, not waiting until more rights vanish.

Our workplaces, our communities, and our democracy deserve better. We must refuse to let procedural rulings undo decades of progress. Because a worker who faces pregnancy, or a termination—should not have to choose between health and livelihood. That choice is antithetical to our stated values. It is time to amplify women’s voices, reinstate lost rights, and declare: no more erasure, no more retreat.