advocacy

Disturbing Amounts of Aborted Fetal Remains Contaminating America’s Tap Water

The abortion pill, mifepristone, is potentially contaminating America’s tap water, the Daily Citizen recently reported. Now, recent data adds a disturbing new layer to this alarming issue.

A 2025 report from Liberty Counsel Action (LCA) estimates between 30 and 40 tons of aborted fetal remains – including human tissue, placenta, blood and chemical byproducts – are flushed into America’s wastewater each year.

For reference, this is equivalent to the weight of a fully loaded semi-truck.

In a Vigilant Fox broadcast, Abigail Forman, one of the report’s authors, commented:

Nearly 700,000 times a year in the U.S., women take abortion pills, flushing the resulting remains down toilets and into our public water systems.

Aborted fetuses, some up to two inches long, are being flushed down toilets, clogging pipes and traumatizing wastewater workers who find them trapped in treatment screens.

Employees of wastewater facilities should not be encountering such graphic remains, nor are these treatment centers equipped process human blood and tissues correctly. The LCA report notes:

Abortion providers issuing chemical abortion pills have been able to use wastewater treatment plants as their de-facto medical waste facilities for decades.

While a few states separately impose burial or cremation requirements for aborted children, “most states do not specifically regulate” aborted fetal remains disposal.

Due to treatment centers’ inability to properly sanitize water contaminated by this hazardous waste, Forman added that dangerous byproducts from both aborted babies and the mifepristone drug are likely present in all forms of our tap water.

Americans across the country are using this harmful water, polluted by death and chemicals, for bathing, drinking, cooking and cleaning on a daily basis.

This issue not only jeopardizes the American people’s health and correlates with rising infertility rates, but the flushing of fetal remains into our sewer system is utterly disrespectful towards the countless babies who have been denied their right to life. The LCA report states,

Liberty Counsel Action agrees that not only is further study needed, so also is dignified disposition of human remains.

Addressing this issue should unite all Americans.

Clean drinking water and human dignity should not be controversial.

Thankfully, several have stepped up to investigate this problem. As previously reported, Senator James Lankford and Congressman Josh Brecheen have urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate “the potential contaminant effects” of mifepristone in America’s tap water. 

More recently, however, Representative Brandon Gill and Senator Jim Banks have introduced “The Respectful Treatment of Unborn Remains Act.” According to a June 25 press release, the act would aim to:

Bar abortionists from disposing of aborted fetal remains in publicly owned water systems, including but not limited to federal, state, and locally controlled drains and pipes.

This legislation would restore dignity to the deceased unborn child and prevent health risks posed by medical waste contamination in public water reserves.

If passed, abortion providers found violating the law would face a fine and up to five years in prison. Notably, these penalties would not apply to the woman receiving the abortion.

Concerning the act, Congressman Gill commented to the Daily Wire,

Not only does abortion rob an unborn baby of their life, but abortionists further rob them of a dignified burial by carelessly discarding their fetal remains into public water systems — a disgusting and abhorrent practice.

This careless discard of human body parts signifies the depraved disregard for the sanctity of life at abortion clinics.

Beyond the moral outrage, introducing fetal remains into public water systems also poses a serious public health concern, potentially contaminating water sources.

I am proud to introduce a bill that restores some dignity after death, as part of the greater fight to protect all life from the evil of abortion.

While the EPA has not commented on this issue, the new bill has received support from several pro-life groups, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Priests for Life and Students for Life Action. Additionally, several House Representatives have cosponsored the bill.

As the LCA stated in their report, the issue of water sanitation and the dignity of human life should not be controversial.

The American people deserve better than contaminated tap water.

Women deserve better than the abortion pill.

And preborn babies robbed of their right to life deserve better than being flushed down the toilet. 

Related Articles and Resources

Focus on the Family: Pro-Life

Abortion Pill Chemicals May Be Contaminating America’s Tap Water

Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Must Keep Funding Planned Parenthood

New Insights on the Dangers of the Abortion Pill

The Abortion Pill: How Does It Work?

Woman Nearly Dies from Abortion Pill, Story Reflects Disturbing EPPC Data

Here’s the Secret Pro-Abortion Activists Won’t Tell You About the Abortion Pill: It’s Dangerous

Emily’s Story: Pro-Life Supporters are More than ‘Pro-Birth’

“Pro-life.”

When you read this, what do you see? It might be the image of an ultrasound or pro-life events like the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Others may see a newborn wrapped in a cozy blanket.

But what happens to this baby after his or her birth?

Although the church does incredible work to care for children who have been granted their right to life, it feels as though the stereotypical pro-life movement is not often associated with advocacy measures for what comes after birth: the rest of a child’s life.

As a pro-life supporter, it frustrates me that these two discussions – the protection of preborn human life, and proper care for children after birth – do not always go hand-in-hand. While pro-life activists rightfully encourage healthy pregnancies and safe births, we must remember that the term “pro-life” also includes services such as safe foster homes and adoptions. In fact, a well-functioning foster care system could significantly reduce women’s felt “need” for abortions.

Tragically, many children who receive their right to life are born into horrible circumstances – abusive or neglectful homes, abandonment, families battling addiction, parents who lack resources to care for their child, the death or incarceration of a parent – the list goes on.

Terrible situations such as these have forced the removal of countless children from their families and warranted their placement in the foster care system. Unfortunately, the term “pro-life” does not typically prompt images of such scenarios.

In 2023, the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) estimated a total of 343,077 children in the United States foster care system. In 2023 alone, 175,283 children entered foster care, with 82% of these placement cases involving abuse and neglect.

While foster care has been a blessing to many children and families, the system is not perfect. As of 2023, 20% of children in the foster care system had spent at least 3 years waiting for either adoption or reunification with their families. Additionally, some choose to foster simply for the extra cash it provides, rather than because they genuinely care about the children in the system.

It is both devastating and difficult to imagine the individual children these statistics represent – boys and girls who were rightfully granted the chance to live, but removed from their biological families and thrown into circumstances beyond their control.

A very close friend of mine, Emily, represents just one of the thousands of children impacted by the foster care system. I recently had the honor of listening to Emily describe her moving experiences with foster care and adoption.

Her story demonstrates exactly why pro-life advocacy does not stop at birth.

Emily was born in 2003, the fifth out of nine children. Her parents did not have the resources to properly care for their family, and their house was crowded and dirty. Emily recalls her youngest sister “crawling around eating cat food and toilet paper” off the ground.

In 2010, Emily’s home was investigated after police found her disabled brother wandering their neighborhood unattended on two separate occasions. As a result, Emily and several of her siblings entered the foster care system due to neglect.

Emily was only six years old when she was removed from her family.

While her two-year-old sister was placed in a stable, loving foster home, Emily and her three-year-old sister lived a very different story – one that no child should ever have to tell.

The two girls remained in their first foster home for one year. During these twelve months, Emily remembers being locked in her bedroom or out of the house for hours at a time, forcing her to use the bathroom outside.

She also recalls her foster mother taking away a book the girls had received from their biological mom. It was never returned. 

During this time, Emily and her sister were often taken back home to visit their parents.

“I didn’t understand why I could see them, but not live with them,” she said.

One day, after waiting until her foster mother had left for the grocery store, Emily called 911 for help. She remembers feeling “scared, confused and wanting to leave.”

When the police arrived at her foster home, they told seven-year-old Emily there was nothing they could do to help her.

A year after their initial placement, Emily and her sister were “dropped off at a friend’s house” so their foster mother could go on vacation. These people were not foster care certified, and when Emily’s social worker found out, the two girls were immediately removed from their first foster care placement.

The sisters were then relocated to a temporary placement, where they stayed for four months before transitioning to a more permanent foster home.

Around this time, Emily was given the option of returning to her biological parents’ home or pursuing adoption. Ultimately, Emily chose adoption.

When describing her third foster care placement, Emily noted she had “nothing bad to say about that place.” It was in this home that Emily and her sister were first introduced to Christianity and ultimately to their adoptive parents.

Little did Emily know that her Sunday school teacher at church would soon provide a permanent, loving home for three girls in need of a family.

After spending 27 months in foster care, Emily and her two sisters moved into their new and final home on October 18, 2012.

Initially, nine-year-old Emily didn’t believe this arrangement was truly permanent, but the girls soon integrated with their new family. They began calling their parents “mom and dad” early on, and were lovingly embraced by their three older siblings.

Today, Emily works as an Early Childhood Educator, teaching a preschool class at a daycare. She explained how her background has allowed her to resonate and sympathize with children in her class who have difficult home lives or struggle with certain issues.

“I had it pretty good overall,” Emily said. “Some kids have it way worse.”

Emily’s story demonstrates that the battle for children’s rights doesn’t stop at birth. As Christians, we are obligated to advocate for children who are alive as a result of the births we have fought for – especially children who have spent years in the foster care system, waiting for either adoption or reunification with their biological families.

Contrary to the stereotype, pro-life supporters are more than just “pro-birth.” We care for a child’s entire life – from conception until the very end.

When I read the words “pro-life,” I still picture the ultrasounds, marches and newborns. But now, I also see faces of children who were given the chance to live, yet are trapped in situations beyond their control.

I see faces like Emily’s – the freckled redhead who has not only become one of my closest friends, but has also deeply influenced my own life with her powerful story.

Ultimately, I see countless lives we can change by providing safe foster homes and adoptions for children in need of Christ’s love.

So, I ask you to read these two words again: “Pro-life.”

What do you see now?

Related Articles and Resources:

Wait No More

Adoption From Foster Care

Faces of Foster Care

Resources: Fostering or Adopting Children From Difficult Backgrounds

Focus on the Family: Pro-Life

Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Laws, Pro-Life Group Challenges Decision

Montana’s Supreme Court recently struck down three pro-life laws, deeming them “unconstitutional.”

The laws included:

  • House Bill 136, which would have outlawed abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy (except if necessary to protect the mother’s health).
  • House Bill 140, which would have required abortion providers to give patients the option of hearing their baby’s heartbeat or seeing an ultrasound.
  • House Bill 171, which would have limited access to abortion pills.

All three laws were initially signed by Montana Governor Greg Gianforte in 2021, but Planned Parenthood was quick to oppose them.

Justice Beth Baker argued the bills violated Montana women’s right to privacy. She claimed the Armstrong Decision (a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling), protected mothers’ access to abortion before a fetus is viable,

“Armstrong thus explicitly and unequivocally acknowledged that the right of individual privacy — encompassing the right to personal and procreative autonomy — is protected separately under Montana’s right to privacy, a broader provision independent of federal law.”

However, the state previously argued this 1999 ruling was wrongly decided and has tried to overturn it several times. Gov. Gianforte and Attorney General Austin Knudsen are continuing that fight in this case.

In a statement criticizing the ruling, Gov. Gianforte said:

Clinging to a shaky, outdated ruling and failing to account for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, these activist justices aren’t interpreting the law. They’re overreaching, making law from the bench and rejecting the will of Montanans’ duly-elected representatives who make laws.

Montana Representative Amy Reiger, who sponsored the bill giving mothers the option to view an ultrasound, said the law aimed to provide women with “good, informed consent.”

She added, “I would say this bill does protect women … My question to Planned Parenthood is, ‘What are you afraid of expecting mothers seeing?'”

In 2024, 58% of Montana voters approved the decision to include abortion rights in Montana’s constitution, ultimately leading to these three laws being struck down.

The Montana Family Foundation (MFF), a Focus on the Family-allied state family policy council, filed a lawsuit on June 9 challenging the addition of abortion rights to the Montana constitution.

The MFF claims that voters who registered on Election Day did not receive enough information on the issue, as the ballot only contained a summary. The full text describing the inclusion of abortion rights had been previously mailed to registered voters.

Let us hope truth will prevail in this case, and the rights of preborn babies and their mothers will be protected by Montana lawmakers.

Related Articles and Resources

Focus on the Family: Pro-Life

Pregnancy Resource Centers Fight Against Mandatory Abortion Referrals in Illinois

Pro-Life, Free Speech Win: Federal Appeals Court Blocks Kentucky ‘Buffer Zone’ Ordinance

Proposed Budget Bill Defunds Abortion Providers Like Planned Parenthood

Arkansas Allocates $2 Million to Pregnancy Help Organizations

Image from Shutterstock.