mifepristone

Florida Sues Planned Parenthood for Falsely Claiming Abortion is ‘Safer Than Tylenol’

Recently, Florida’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for falsely advertising chemical abortion as “safer than Tylenol.” The lawsuit alleges Planned Parenthood promoted this claim to sell abortion-inducing drugs, like Mifepristone, while downplaying the potential risks for women.

Planned Parenthood claims, “Mifepristone is safe. Safer than Tylenol.” Florida’s complaint alleges this statement is “manifestly false.”

The state contends this deceptive advertising violates state consumer protection and racketeering laws:

“Planned Parenthood’s campaign to induce women to purchase abortion drugs by misrepresenting the risks of chemical abortion violates the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity under the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (the Florida RICO Act).”

The lawsuit cites a recent study released by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event,” which “found that 11% of women experience a serious adverse event like sepsis or hemorrhaging within 45 days of a chemical abortion.” 

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the research revealed the complication rate for the chemical abortion regimen “is 22 times higher than the FDA’s current label, which suggests the rate of adverse effects is only 0.5%.”

Earlier this year, Secretary Kennedy instructed the FDA to do a “complete review” of the chemical abortion pill. Kennedy said HHS would make recommendations based on the data, but decisions on regulation would come from the White House. HHS is still conducting their investigation.

Florida’s Attorney General alleges tens of thousands of Florida women have been misled about chemical abortions by Planned Parenthood’s deceptive marketing, in violation of the state’s law prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

Florida also contends Planned Parenthood violates state RICO law by acting in a pattern of racketeering activity. The complaint alleges Planned Parenthood committed this violation by disseminating “multiple ‘Safer than Tylenol’ advertisements with the same or similar intent (to induce women to purchase chemical abortions), results (the purchase of chemical abortions), accomplices (codefendants), victims (women purchasing chemical abortions) and methods of commission (through representations on the PPFA website and representations or omissions made by Planned Parenthood affiliates).”

The advertisements are also interrelated (not isolated incidents), frequent and ongoing, per the complaint.

The complaint asks the court to order all defendants to stop saying abortion is safer than Tylenol, to pay statutory penalties of $350 million and a $1 million civil penalty per defendant (Planned Parenthood of America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood of Florida and Planned Parenthood Florida Action) for violating state law, and any other penalty the court sees fit.

Planned Parenthood denies the allegations. They contend the lawsuit is politically motivated and not based in facts. They have not filed a written legal response to the complaint as of November 21.

The question before the court will be whether Planned Parenthood’s phrasing crosses a legal line into consumer deception. The court’s answer has the potential to reshape how abortion providers communicate risks, how states regulate healthcare advertising, and how consumer protection laws can be used to protect women from the dangers of abortion.

The Daily Citizen will continue to follow this developing story.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone), come to regret their decision.

Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken. 

To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

Additionally, if you’re struggling and need a listening ear, Focus on the Family offers a free, one-time counseling consultation with a licensed or pastoral counselor. To request a counseling consultation, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) or fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

Related articles and resources:

RFK Jr. Announces ‘Complete Review’ of Abortion Pill After ‘Alarming’ New Study Reveals Dangers

Louisiana, ADF Challenge Biden-Era Abortion-By-Mail Scheme

FDA Approves Generic Abortion Pill Despite Ongoing Safety Review

Become an Option Ultrasound Life Advocate

Dealing With Unplanned Pregnancy

I’m Pregnant, Now What?

My Choice Network

New Insights on the Dangers of the Abortion Pill

FDA Approves Generic Abortion Pill Despite Ongoing Safety Review

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a generic abortion pill just days after it confirmed its new investigation into the safety of chemical abortions.

The FDA approved Evita Solutions’ application for a generic mifepristone pill on September 30 after finding it “bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent” to the name brand pill, Mifeprex.

Mifepristone starves preborn children of essential blood flow and nutrients by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone. It is the first chemical women ingest in the two-step chemical abortion regimen.

Watch Focus on the Family’s broadcast about the abortion pill.

The FDA’s authorization of another abortion pill seemingly contradicts its commitment to reevaluate mifepristone’s safety.

Just eleven days before its letter to Evita Solutions, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confirmed the FDA is conducting an evidentiary review of the abortion pill.

“HHS — through the FDA — is conducting its own review of the evidence, including real-world outcomes and evidence, relating to the safety and efficacy of the drug,” the wrote in a letter to 22 concerned state attorneys general.

The AGs had requested HHS and FDA reinstate stringent restrictions on mifepristone in July.

When the FDA legalized mifepristone in 2000, it required:

  • The patient be less than seven weeks pregnant.
  • The patient visit the doctor three times before ingesting the drug.
  • The drug be prescribed by a doctor in a doctor’s office.
  • The drug be ingested in a doctor’s office with a doctor’s supervision.
  • The patient follow up with the doctor at least once after ingesting the drug.

Scientists used the same stringent restrictions in mifepristone’s clinical trials.

Today, the FDA requires none of these safety precautions. Women can be prescribed pills by doctors online or order them from legally-dubious websites. They do not have to get a sonogram to determine the age of their child or whether they have an ectopic pregnancy.  Most go through the painful abortion in their bathrooms alone.

In April, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) released data showing just how dangerous taking mifepristone has become.

The bombshell report analyzed insurance claims from a representative sample of more than 865,700 chemical abortions. It indicated nearly 11% of women experienced a severe or life-threatening adverse event within 45 days of taking mifepristone, including:

  • Sepsis – 0.10% of cases (824 women)
  • Infection — 1.34% (11,707)
  • Required blood transfusion – 0.15% (1,257)
  • Hemorrhage – 3.31% (28,658)
  • Required hospitalization for complications related to the chemical abortion – 0.66% (5,699)
  • Required ER visit for complications related to the chemical abortion – 4.73% (40,960)
  • Ectopic pregnancy — 0.35% (3,062)
  • Other life-threatening adverse events related to the chemical abortion, including cardiac and pulmonary complications, anaphylaxis, thrombosis and surgery – 0.22% (1,956)
  • Repeated surgical abortion to complete the chemical abortion – 2.84% (24,563)
  • Other complications related to the chemical abortion, including life-threatening mental health diagnoses – 5.68% (49,169)

These findings indicate women are up to 22 times more likely to experience severe or life-threatening harm after taking mifepristone than the FDA had previously claimed.

HHS and FDA promised to investigate the discrepancy. In their September 19 letter, Kennedy and Makary wrote:

Recent studies — such as the study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) … — indicate potential dangers that may attend offering mifepristone without sufficient medical support or supervision.”

They further revealed the FDA itself had documented thousands of mifepristone-related adverse events before it eliminated the drug’s safety protocols:

FDA’s own data collected between 2000 to 2012 indicated 2,740 adverse events, including 416 events involving blood loss requiring transfusions.
Since then, safeguards for women regarding the administration of mifepristone have been significantly reduced.

Members of the House Values Action Team (VAT) team are among the legislators asking why, if mifepristone is dangerous enough to warrant a safety investigation, the FDA is approving more of the drug to hit shelves.

“The FDA’s approval of a new generic version of the abortion pill, mifepristone, endangers women’s health and disregards the value of life,” Congressman and VAT Chairman Robert Aderholt wrote in a statement.

“By approving another generic iteration of this pill while a safety review is ongoing, the FDA risks undermining women’s health and safety across the United States.”

Read more statements from more VAT members.

Neither Makary nor Kennedy had commented on the issue as of October 8.

The FDA has an urgent problem on its hands. Upwards of 11% of women may be suffering severe harm from chemical abortions, which are only growing more common. Meanwhile, the abortion industry claims mifepristone is safer than Tylenol.

The FDA should never approve drugs used to end human life. Barring a complete prohibition on mifepristone, the FDA should not approve generic abortion pills while investigation the drug’s safety.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, visit My Choice Network.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone) come to regret their decision. Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken. To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

To learn more about pro-life legislation in your state, contact your state Family Policy Council.

To learn more about the consequences of a chemical abortion, visit the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

FDA Launches Review of Abortion Pill and the Harms it Causes Women

Pro-Abortion States Beef Up Protections for Abortion Pill Prescribers

Texas Father Sues Out-of-State Abortionist for Killing His Preborn Children

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortion in Pro-Life States

Shield Law Abortion Providers Advertised Alongside Black Market Abortion Pills

Texas Sues New York Doctor for Prescribing Abortion Meds

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

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

Focus on the Family Broadcast: Abortion Pill Reversal

#AbortionChangesYou: A Case Study to Understand the Communicative Tensions in Women’s Medication Abortion Narratives (Health Communication)

The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event (Ethics and Public Policy Center)

Pro-Abortion States Beef Up Protections for Abortion Pill Prescribers

Pro-abortion states are passing laws stripping prescriber names off chemical abortion pill labels.

The laws further insulate doctors who prescribe chemical abortion pills to people in pro-life states from investigation and prosecution.

Prescription Label Laws

New York, Maine, Vermont, Washington and Colorado have passed laws allowing prescribers to remove their names from prescriptions for mifepristone and misoprostol, the drugs used in a chemical abortion.

The laws make it nearly impossible for pro-life states to identify out-of-state, online abortionists—let alone investigate or sue them.

It’s unclear whether this kind of legislation is even legal; federal law requires prescriber names appear on all drug labels. But, so far, the laws remain unchallenged — and deeply problematic for pro-life states.

Importantly, prescription label laws making abortionists anonymous cover both local doctors prescribing abortions and doctors from other states that fill orders through local pharmacies. That means a mail-order abortionist in California could strip his name from a chemical abortion prescription if he filled the script at a pharmacy in New York.

California hopes to capitalize on this loophole by passing AB 260 — a bill that would remove both prescriber and patient names from chemical abortion pill labels. Most pharmacies that dispense mifepristone are in California, according to the left-leaning news outlet 19th Street

AB 260 is awaiting committee action in the California Senate. It passed the Assembly in May.

Shield Laws

Prescription label laws anonymizing abortionists beef up pro-abortion “shield laws” against pro-life judicial challenges.

States with abortion “shield laws” promise not to investigate out-of-state abortion providers or cooperate with investigations and prosecutions from pro-life states.

Eight states — California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have shield laws explicitly protecting doctors who prescribe chemical abortions to patients in other states.

Fifteen others offer at least some protection from pro-life states’ investigations.

Of the 95,710 abortions prescribed or performed nationwide in December, an estimated one-in-seven were prescribed to women in pro-life states by abortionists in shield law states, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of data collected by the Society of Family Planning.

Pro-Life Challenges to Shield Laws

Pro-life states are workshopping ways to circumvent shield laws in court.

Louisiana and Texas pursued state judgements against Maggie Carpenter, a New York mail order abortionist, earlier this year— but they proved impossible to enforce without New York’s cooperation.

Now, pro-life states are empowering individual citizens to sue out-of-state abortionists for wrongdoing.

In July, Texas father Jerry Rodriguez sued California abortionist Remy Coeytaux in federal court for the wrongful death of Rodriguez’ pre-born children. A federal judgement in favor of Rodriguez would effectively strip Coetytaux of California’s shield law protections.

A Louisiana law allowing citizens to sue out-of-state abortionists, and extending the statute of limitations on abortion lawsuits to five years, took effect earlier this month.

Prescription laws anonymizing abortionists make it harder to file lawsuits like these by hiding the offenders’ identity.

Why It Matters

Chemical abortions are extremely dangerous. Nearly 11% of the more than 865,000 women who filed insurance claims for chemical abortions between 2017 and 2023 experienced severe adverse medical events within 45 days of taking mifepristone, according to data analysis by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, including:

  • Sepsis
  • Infection
  • Blood loss requiring a transfusion
  • Hemorrhage
  • Related hospitalization
  • Related ER visit
  • Related life-threatening cardiac, pulmonary and allergic reactions
  • Repeated surgical abortion
  • Other severe or life-threatening abortion-specific complications

Out-of-state, online abortion providers compound these dangers by prescribing abortion pills to:

  • Women more than 10-weeks pregnant, which is the FDA’s gestational limit for chemical abortions.
  • Teenage girls, often without parents’ consent, and even though mifepristone has never undergone pediatric testing.
  • Women who have not had an ultrasound, which doctors use to detect dangerous ectopic pregnancies mifepristone can disguise.
  • Women who will take the pills without a doctors’ supervision, which greatly increases the rate of complications.
  • People on behalf of women, which can indicate a woman is being coerced or tricked into getting an abortion.

Pro-abortion states should not be allowed to absolve abortionists of responsibility for the harms their actions cause vulnerable women.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, visit My Choice Network.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone) come to regret their decision. Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken. To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

To learn more about pro-life legislation in your state, contact your state Family Policy Council.

To learn more about the consequences of a chemical abortion, visit the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Texas Father Sues Out-of-State Abortionist for Killing His Preborn Children

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortion in Pro-Life States

Shield Law Abortion Providers Advertised Alongside Black Market Abortion Pills

Texas Sues New York Doctor for Prescribing Abortion Meds

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

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

Focus on the Family Broadcast: Abortion Pill Reversal

#AbortionChangesYou: A Case Study to Understand the Communicative Tensions in Women’s Medication Abortion Narratives (Health Communication)

The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event (Ethics and Public Policy Center)

Texas Father Sues Out-of-State Abortionist for Killing His Preborn Children

A Texas father is suing an out-of-state abortionist for contributing to the death of his preborn children.

The federal class action suit, filed on behalf of “all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States,” could stop abortionists from mailing mifepristone, the chemical abortion drug, into pro-life states.

The Case

Jerry Rodriguez alleges Remy Coeytaux, a California abortionist, illegally shipped chemical abortion pills into Texas, which caused the death of his two children.

Coeytaux represents a network of medical providers that prescribe and facilitate the shipment of chemical abortion pills into pro-life states. His sister, long-time abortion activist Francine Coeytaux, co-founded Plan C Pills — a website that connects women with online abortion providers.

Read the Daily Citizen’s story on black market abortion pills.

Rodriguez filed the suit on July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Galveston Division. He’s represented by former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, who helped write some of the nation’s most stringent pro-life laws.

Shield Laws

Abortionists are circumventing pro-life laws by prescribing chemical abortion kits online and sending them through the mail.

Several operate out of pro-abortion states with shield laws — laws promising not to investigate mail-order abortionists or cooperate with investigations from pro-life states.

Eight states — California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have passed laws explicitly protecting abortionists who prescribe chemical abortions to out-of-state patients.

Fifteen others offer at least some protection against out-of-state investigations and lawsuits.

Shield laws make it nearly impossible for states to prosecute out-of-state abortionists that break pro-life laws. State-level judgements can’t be enforced without the resident state’s cooperation.

That’s a major problem, because more people are requesting mail-order abortion pills than ever. Of the 95,710 abortions prescribed or performed in December nationwide, an estimated one-in-seven were prescribed to women in pro-life states by abortionists in shield law states, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of data collected by the Society of Family Planning.

DID YOU KNOW?
The chemical abortion pill is exceptionally dangerous. One in ten women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging or another “serious adverse event” after taking mifepristone, according to insurance data analyzed by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Kendal’s second chemical abortion was even riskier because her baby was three months old. The FDA only approves chemical abortions through ten weeks of pregnancy.
The Allegations

In his case, Rodriguez claims his girlfriend, Kendal Garza, underwent two chemical abortions via pills prescribed by Coeytaux.

The first abortion allegedly occurred late last year. Shortly after Kendal and Rodriguez announced their pregnancy, Kendal’s estranged husband, Adam Garza, purchased a chemical abortion cocktail from Coeytaux through an online telemedicine appointment.

Garza and Kendal’s mother reportedly pressured Kendal into taking the illicit pills.

The second abortion occurred in 2025. Kendal carried her and Rodriguez’ baby boy for three months before she, again, allegedly consumed chemical abortion pills prescribed by Coeytaux and purchased her estranged husband.

Requested Judgement

Rodriguez requests the court hold Coeytaux legally liable for the wrongful death of his preborn children. He asks the judge to award him monetary damages and permanently bar Coeytaux from sending chemical abortion pills across state lines.

Texas law defines “wrongful death” as death caused by another person’s “wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness or default.” State law also classifies a preborn baby as a person.

The filing argues Coeytaux committed “wrongful acts” by defying state and federal laws regulating abortions.

Texas requires chemical abortions be:

  • Prescribed to a woman less than six weeks pregnant.
  • Prescribed by a licensed Texas physician.
  • Performed in a licensed abortion facility.
  • Performed after a mandatory ultrasound (a safety precaution to identify ectopic pregnancies, which can be fatal if left untreated.)

According to the suit, Coeytaux’s failure to meet these requirements make him guilty of felony murder — intentionally and knowingly causing a person’s death — and aiding an illegal, self-managed abortion.  

The filings reads:

Assisting a self-managed abortion in Texas is an act of murder. Although Kendal Garza cannot be charged with murder for her role in killing her unborn child, her immunity does not shield Coeytaux from liability for aiding or abetting or directly participating in the murder.
The Comstock Act

Rodriguez’ suit also alleges Coeytaux’s conduct violates the Comstock Act, a federal law prohibiting the physical or digital transportation of “abortion-related items or information” across state lines.

The act, which became law in 1873, regulates the interstate trade of “obscene literature and articles of immoral use,” including materials aiding and abetting abortion. It was last amended in 1996.

Rodriguez made his case a federal one by tying Coeytaux’s wrongdoing to Comstock. Though modern courts rarely enforce it, it is still a federal law.

Why It Matters

Rodriguez’ case is the first to challenge abortion shield laws in federal court. This is vital, because state-level shield laws cannot protect abortionists from an interstate judgement.

A favorable ruling in Rodriguez would establish a new precedent for enforcing Comstock against mail-order abortionists. That precedent, in turn, would allow states to obtain enforceable federal injunctions against out-of-state abortion providers.

Rodriguez’ story also offers an important counterpoint to the narrative that mail-order abortions protect women’s freedom. The alleged relationship between Kendal, her mother and her estranged husband demonstrate the ways third parties can — and do — use unregulated abortion pills to coerce or manipulate women into chemical abortions.

The Daily Citizen will continue covering Rodriguez v. Coeytaux.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call Focus on the Family at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, visit My Choice Network.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone), come to regret their decision. Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken. To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

To learn more about pro-life legislation in your state, contact your state Family Policy Council.

To learn more about the consequences of a chemical abortion, visit the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortion in Pro-Life States

Shield Law Abortion Providers Advertised Alongside Black Market Abortion Pills

Texas Sues New York Doctor for Prescribing Abortion Meds

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

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

Focus on the Family Broadcast: Abortion Pill Reversal

#AbortionChangesYou: A Case Study to Understand the Communicative Tensions in Women’s Medication Abortion Narratives (Health Communication)

The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event (Ethics and Public Policy Center)

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