While the political battle over mifepristone rages on, another front remains disturbingly silent: the environment. As over 63% of U.S. abortions in 2023 were chemical, the aftermath of these procedures, fetal remains, blood, and pharmaceutical residues, are routinely flushed into our wastewater systems. Yet no federal agency, including the EPA, has conducted a comprehensive study on what this means for our water, wildlife, and public health.
It’s time to ask: what happens after the pill?
Unregulated Waste, Unanswered Questions
Chemical abortions are marketed as “private” and “convenient,” but that convenience comes at a cost. Unlike surgical abortions, which are subject to medical waste protocols, at-home abortions often result in fetal tissue and drug metabolites entering toilets, sinks, and municipal sewage systems. These systems were never designed to handle pathological waste or pharmaceutical contaminants at this scale.
- Mifepristone and Misoprostol, the two drugs used in chemical abortions, are potent compounds with known hormonal and inflammatory effects. Once excreted, they can enter wastewater treatment plants that aren’t equipped to fully neutralize them.
- Endocrine disruption is a documented consequence of pharmaceutical runoff. Studies on birth control hormones and antidepressants have shown harmful effects on fish reproduction, amphibian development, and even human fertility. Why would abortion drugs be exempt?
Lawmakers Sound the Alarm—EPA Stays Silent
In June 2025, Senator James Lankford and Rep. Josh Brecheen led a coalition urging the EPA to investigate the environmental risks of mifepristone. Their letter warned of “unregulated pharmaceutical waste” and called for a full environmental impact study.
“Federal regulators are rightfully eager to study the health effects of many chemicals in our water and septic systems,” said Lankford, “but they haven’t examined the environmental and public health risks of chemical abortion drugs like mifepristone in those same systems.”
“Scientific research on the health effects of water sources where there are trace amounts of a chemical that is designed to end the life of a child in the womb should not be controversial.”
Brecheen was even more direct:
“Abortion is one of the defining evils of our time. The Biden-Harris administration worked tirelessly to promote this evil, repeatedly lying about the ‘safety’ of the abortion pill and ignoring legitimate concerns about mifepristone’s widespread availability.”
“We recognize that the greatest tragedy of every abortion is the murder of the innocent. But we are also concerned that activist bureaucrats overlooked real public health risks posed by mifepristone in their crusade to expand abortion access.”
This isn’t the first time the issue has been raised. In May 2024, Senator Marco Rubio and nine colleagues criticized the FDA’s reliance on a 1996 environmental assessment that ignored the disposal of fetal remains and drug residues. That outdated review was conducted before telemedicine abortions, before mail-order pills, and before chemical abortions became the majority.
Despite bipartisan pressure, the EPA has yet to issue a formal response under either the Biden or Trump administrations.
The Scale of the Problem
Let’s do the math:
- Over 800,000 chemical abortions were performed in 2023.
- That’s millions of gallons of wastewater potentially contaminated with biological material and pharmaceutical compounds.
- No tracking. No mitigation. No accountability.
Even if a fraction of these cases result in environmental contamination, the cumulative impact could be staggering. And yet, abortion advocates dismiss these concerns as “fringe” or “ideological.” Since when did protecting water quality become partisan?
What the EPA Should Be Investigating
A real environmental review would ask:
- Do mifepristone and misoprostol persist in treated wastewater?
- Are fetal remains being flushed into public systems without proper containment?
- What are the long-term effects on aquatic ecosystems and drinking water?
- Should pharmaceutical companies be held liable for downstream contamination?
These are not abstract questions. They’re the same ones asked about opioids, SSRIs, and birth control hormones. The difference? Chemical abortion is politically protected, and environmental oversight is being sacrificed on the altar of “access.”
Connecting the Dots
This environmental blind spot mirrors the safety blind spot we exposed in our previous article about HHS Secretary Kennedy’s request for the FDA to evaluate the safety of mifepristone for women. Just as blue states are suing to strip away REMS safeguards, they’re ignoring the ecological consequences of deregulated abortion. If they won’t protect women, why would they protect our water?
Time for Accountability
At Conservative Ladies of America, we believe environmental stewardship and human dignity go hand in hand. Mifepristone doesn’t just end unborn lives; it may be poisoning the very systems that sustain life. We stand with Senator Lankford and the coalition calling on the EPA to launch a full investigation, and on Congress to demand transparency from both the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Because protecting women means protecting everything that sustains them including clean water, safe communities, and honest science.
Support Conservative Ladies of America
At Conservative Ladies of America, we expose what others won’t—from environmental blind spots to federal overreach. Your donation fuels independent research, rapid-response campaigns, and the mobilization of parents and advocates nationwide.
Stand with us. Speak truth. Protect life and liberty.