Earlier this month, a coalition of 14 attorneys general wrote a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asking it to add the abortion pill, mifepristone and its generics, to a list of water contaminants that need further investigation of potential harmful health effects on pregnant women.
For many pro-life Americans, the request raises an obvious question: Why hasn’t this been studied before?
Mifepristone is the first medication in a two-drug regimen used to induce a chemical abortion. It works by blocking progesterone, the hormone needed for a baby to grow in the womb. Without progesterone, the baby starves to death. The second medication, misoprostol, causes the uterus to expel the dead baby.
Guttmacher Institute reports that chemical abortions account for 63% of abortions in the United States each year. At the same time, abortion pills are increasingly prescribed through telehealth visits and delivered by mail, resulting in more women self-managing abortions at home and flushing chemically tainted medical waste and human fetal tissue into America’s waterways.
The attorneys general contend that the increase in abortion pill use and at-home chemical abortions raises important questions under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In their letter, they argue that “conventional wastewater treatment is not designed to remove” abortion-drug contaminants from the water supply. They maintain that this creates a potentially serious public health concern because regulators do not know the extent to which abortion-drug residues may be present in drinking water or what effects long-term exposure could have on women and developing children.
The attorneys general further contend that “if mifepristone reaches sufficient concentration, pregnant women who unintentionally ingest the drug through the public water supply could be at greater risk of health complications.”
To address those concerns they are asking the EPA to add mifepristone and its generic equivalents to the agency’s Contaminant Candidate List, a screening tool used to identify substances that may warrant additional study and monitoring.
Placement on the list would not mean the EPA has determined the drug poses a risk to public health. Rather, it would signal that the agency believes the substance merits further investigation to determine whether regulation or additional monitoring is appropriate.
According to the attorneys general, further study is needed to better understand any unintended effects these drugs may have on public health, including potential impacts on fertility and reproductive development.
The EPA routinely evaluates chemicals and pharmaceutical compounds that find their way into the nation’s waterways. The attorneys general argue that mifepristone deserves similar scrutiny.
Supporters of the request contend that the rapid growth of at-home chemical abortions raises legitimate questions about whether abortion drugs and their metabolites are entering water systems in meaningful quantities and, if so, what effects they may have on human health and the environment.
Critics counter that there is currently no evidence showing mifepristone in drinking water poses a public health threat. They’re wrong.
Supporters also respond that any absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of no problem. If mifepristone has not been routinely monitored as a drinking water contaminant, regulators would have limited data about its existence in water supplies or any potential long-term effects. That uncertainty, they argue, is precisely why further study is warranted.
The letter was authored by Missouri Attorney General (AG) Catherine Hanaway and is joined by: Alabama AG Steve Marshall, Alaska AG Cori Mills, Arkansas AG Tim Griffin, Florida AG James Uthmeier, Idaho AG Raul Labrador, Indiana AG Todd Rokita, Kansas AG Kris Kobach, Kentucky AG Russell Coleman, Louisiana AG Liz Murrill, Nebraska AG Mike Hilgers, Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond, South Carolina AG Alan Wilson and Texas AG Ken Paxton.
The campaign is led by Students for Life Action.
Americans deserve to understand the full consequences of drugs designed to end human life. Asking questions, gathering facts and following the evidence wherever it leads should be an effort embraced by all people of goodwill.
