As a proud mother to seven beautiful children who is navigating her eighth pregnancy while working full time, I vehemently oppose the so-called Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

You may be surprised, wondering why a working mom would oppose something that on its surface protects women like me from facing discrimination in the workplace.  

In practice, however, the act’s vague terminology regarding “related medical conditions” might force employers to cover abortion leave and related expenses under federal law. Not only that, but the act also seems to lack protections for religious or pro-life Americans who may object to covering expenses that violate their consciences or religious beliefs.  

According to the act’s text, it is unlawful for a covered entity to “not make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 

Such vague language regarding “related medical conditions” rightly concerned many Americans, especially in light of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood ardently supporting the act.

Accommodations for abortion care shouldn't be mandated

A memo from the National Women’s Law Center recently raised similar alarms when it bragged that the act could cover abortion recovery time, and that “an employer might be required to modify an employee’s schedule to allow time to attend a doctor’s appointment related to pregnancy or childbirth – for example, to address postpartum depression or to have an abortion.” 

Just recently, our worst fears were confirmed when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published proposed regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that could require U.S. employers to provide "reasonable accommodations" for pregnant women seeking abortions.

What state is next?Ohio voters just sent Republicans a message on abortion. Be afraid.

What about religious employers or those whose consciences object to covering abortion for their employees? The act seems deliberately intended to discriminate against these types of employers and individuals, who can and likely will be forced to undergo lengthy, expensive and painful lawsuits to defend their religious freedom.  

As the National Women’s Law Center memo concedes, employers of religious institutions may deny accommodations, but “only in limited circumstances.” Is religious freedom a “limited” right?

Working moms deserve legitimate accommodations

Precedents indicate that to abortion rights advocates, such a religious right is meaningless – especially when it would protect pro-life advocates and opponents from the far-left’s abortion agenda.  

In five of my own pregnancies, I've suffered severe complications that compromised my ability to work for periods of time.

Freedom wins with SCOTUS decision:Supreme Court web designer ruling is victory for free speech rights

Unfortunately, all the evidence indicates that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is yet another example of pro-abortion advocates taking cover under the guise of “helping pregnant women” and using this legislation as a Trojan horse for extreme and discriminatory regulations.  

For me, and many of the working moms I know, the act's requirements that employers make "reasonable accommodations" for us could make a great difference in years to come.

Nonetheless, lumping abortion care in along with pregnancy accommodations will inevitably invite some employers to question whether women like me with grave complications who refuse to terminate their child are actually asking for "unreasonable accommodations" outside the scope of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

We've already seen this impulse from major corporations like Amazon, Bumble and JPMorgan, which are happy to pay for abortion accommodations for their workers. 

Mothers carrying the next generation of Americans deserve the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as it was originally conceived − as a supportive measure for pregnant women, not women who ended their pregnancies.

I refuse to support any policy pretending to “protect women” with a side of ideological extremism. I will fight avidly against the so-called Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act – and so should you.  

Erika Ahern is an associate editor at CatholicVote and co-host of the "LOOPcast."