Op-Ed: The Abortion Pill in American Water: Outdated Testing Demands Updated Answers

Could the abortion pill be lowering America’s fertility rate through our drinking water?

Right now, nobody really knows. Scientists haven’t studied this closely enough to say for sure. And there are good reasons to study it now — better reasons than there were 10 years ago.

In 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a drug called mifepristone, which is used for chemical abortions.

Before approving it, the agency had done a safety check on the environment back in 1996. That check said the drug was safe to use and throw away, with no harm expected to the environment.

That answer made sense at the time. Back then, this kind of abortion was rare. Most patients took the drug in a clinic, with a doctor close by.

Things are very different today. By 2023, this type of abortion made up about 63 percent of all abortions done through regular health care in the U.S. That’s far higher than in the past.

At the same time, the rules around the drug have loosened. Patients used to have to pick it up in person. Now, they often don’t. This means more people take the drug at home, which changes how the drug enters our water system.

The 1996 safety check never planned for this. An old answer is only as good as the facts it was based on — and many of those facts have changed.

Because so much has changed, it makes sense to update that 30-year-old safety check.

This isn’t about politics. It’s normal, basic safety work. The EPA does this kind of review for many other chemicals already.

Some people criticized a recent letter from a group of state attorneys general asking the Environmental Protection Agency to study this issue. They’re right that the letter doesn’t list any detailed studies. That’s a fair criticism of the letter. But that doesn’t mean the question itself is hollow.

There IS real scientific research on this drug and water. It’s worth looking at the actual science, not just the arguments on opposing political sides.

Some studies have measured mifepristone and similar drugs in wastewater with reported levels in the nanograms-per-liter range.

Scientists have also measured a broader effect called “anti-progestogenic activity,” which captures the combined hormone-blocking effect of mifepristone and similar chemicals together.

Some research has reported this combined effect at much higher levels in surface water in some areas, such as China and Australia. U.S. and European water tests of mifepristone have generally found far lower amounts.

One recent study looked at adult female frogs, exposing them to mifepristone for 30 days. That study found a real effect compared to frogs that weren’t exposed. At higher levels, the frogs laid fewer eggs. And only half of them successfully reproduced when paired with a mate.

The study used concentrations similar to what’s sometimes been measured in wastewater, so this isn’t just a lab curiosity — it’s evidence that reproduction can be affected in animals.

None of this yet proves the drug is dangerous as it’s currently found in U.S. tap water. The numbers from other countries are much higher than those found here. But this research does show the concern is real and serious — and not yet fully answered.

It’s worth knowing that asking to study this drug isn’t unusual. The EPA is already working on a list of pharmaceutical chemicals to study in our water — 374 different FDA-approved drugs that might show up in lakes, rivers, groundwater, or tap water. The agency already treats trace amounts of medicine in water as something worth checking, across the board.

So adding mifepristone to that list isn’t a special exception. It’s simply asking that this one drug get the same kind of check the EPA is already giving hundreds of others.
It’s not “just politics.” If the EPA already checks hundreds of other drugs this way, it’s tough to say mifepristone alone shouldn’t get checked, too.

A reasonable approach here is simple: update the obsolete 1996 safety check, run new studies at the levels actually found in U.S. water, and the results — whatever they turn out to be.

If the study finds that U.S. levels are too low to cause harm, that’s a useful answer. It would settle an argument that right now is mostly happening through press releases and opinions, not facts. If the study finds something more worrying, that’s important information too, either way.

The EPA already studies hundreds of other drugs this same way. Doing the same for a drug whose use has changed considerably over time just makes sense.

Whether the drop in America’s fertility rate is connected, even partly, to this drug ending up in our water is a real question. It deserves a real, scientific answer — not just opinion and argument.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either d or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.