On December 15, 2025, a new front opened in the ongoing battle over abortion in the United States, but this time, the fight is playing out in an unexpected arena: the nation’s drinking water regulations. Students for Life of America (SFLA), a prominent anti-abortion group, launched a campaign urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add mifepristone—a medication used in more than two-thirds of all U.S. abortions—to the federal list of drinking water contaminants monitored by public utilities. The move is part of a broader strategy by abortion opponents to leverage environmental laws in their quest to restrict abortion access, according to reporting from POLITICO and The Mirror U.S.
“People need to understand that they are likely drinking other people’s abortions,” said Kristi Hamrick, SFLA’s head of policy, in a statement to POLITICO. She went on to ask, “Do you really need a test to determine that it’s a bad idea to flush placenta, tissue, blood and human remains into our waterways?” The group’s campaign is being promoted under the banner of the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, an effort to link their anti-abortion stance with wider concerns about chemical pollutants and public health.
This campaign didn’t emerge in a vacuum. For years, anti-abortion activists have sought to use environmental regulations as a tool to challenge abortion access, but SFLA’s latest push is especially targeted. The group met with EPA staff in November 2025, where, according to Hamrick, officials seemed “very interested in what we were talking about and informed.” The EPA confirmed to POLITICO that leaders from its Office of Water met with SFLA representatives. Brigit Hirsch, the agency’s press secretary, stated, “The agency takes the issue of pharmaceuticals in our water systems seriously and employs a rigorous, science-based approach to protect human health and the environment.” Hirsch also encouraged all stakeholders to review the EPA’s proposals and submit comments during the upcoming public comment period.
The timing of SFLA’s campaign is no accident. The EPA is preparing to release its updated list of 30 pollutants that public utilities must track in drinking water—a process that occurs every five years. Placement on this “unregulated contaminants” list allows the agency to collect nationwide data on chemicals, which could eventually lead to federal limits. SFLA’s hope is that, by mobilizing supporters to flood the EPA with requests during the public comment period, they can pressure the agency to add mifepristone or its active metabolites to the list.
But there are significant hurdles. The EPA told SFLA that it was too late to include mifepristone in the current proposed list of chemicals, but suggested that the group could request the addition of the drug’s active metabolites during the public comment period. Under EPA rules, before a substance can be added to the list, there must be a verified analytical method for measuring it in water—a standardized test that can be used by all water systems serving at least 10,000 people. No such EPA-approved test currently exists for mifepristone. This technicality makes the likelihood of mifepristone being added to the list slim, though not impossible.
As Hamrick explained to The Mirror U.S., “They said one path forward for us is to ask for the active metabolites in mifepristone to be added to that list, which we could do using the public comment period.” SFLA is now rallying its national network to submit comments. “All I want for Christmas is for millions of Americans to let the Trump Administration know that we want assurances that the Make America Healthy Again agenda includes clean water for all life,” said SFLA President Kristan Hawkins.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, whom SFLA plans to meet in January 2026, has a record of supporting abortion restrictions, including co-sponsoring a 2021 bill to ban abortion nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The group’s outreach to Zeldin and other officials is part of what Hamrick calls an “all-of-the-above strategy.” SFLA is also advocating for state and federal legislation that cites the alleged environmental impact of mifepristone as a reason to restrict its use, and they’re seeking meetings with other high-profile officials, including FDA Administrator Marty Makary and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Despite the fervor of SFLA’s campaign, environmental scientists and public health experts remain unconvinced by its central claim. According to POLITICO, multiple scientists have stated there is no evidence that mifepristone pollution is harming people, animals, or the environment. Betsy Southerland, a former career scientist at the EPA’s Office of Water, was blunt in her assessment: “We have such a huge queue of emerging contaminants that we know are toxic, and we know are in our drinking water and in our fisheries. You would be replacing a known toxic chemical for a hypothetical one.” Southerland called the idea of adding mifepristone to the list “outrageous,” warning that it would divert local resources away from monitoring “well-documented contaminants.”
There are also legal and procedural safeguards in place. The formulation of the EPA’s contaminants list is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, which makes it difficult for the agency to add substances to the final version that weren’t included in the proposed rule. Doing so could expose the EPA to lawsuits for acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. “You can’t just do a bait and switch,” Southerland told POLITICO.
Nevertheless, SFLA’s campaign appears to be having an effect on public opinion. According to a recent poll by the nonpartisan health care think tank KFF, 40 percent of Americans say they are unsure about the safety of mifepristone, while another 18 percent view the pills as either “very unsafe” or “somewhat unsafe.” That marks a sharp increase in skepticism since 2023, when only 9 percent considered the pills unsafe and 35 percent were unsure.
Republican lawmakers have echoed SFLA’s concerns. In June 2025, dozens of GOP members of Congress sent a letter to EPA Administrator Zeldin urging the agency to consider the impact of mifepristone on drinking water and to assess what resources would be needed to develop a testing method. The letter also called on the FDA to conduct a review of mifepristone, despite the existence of more than 100 peer-reviewed studies attesting to the drug’s safety and efficacy—a review the FDA has said is underway.
For now, the EPA’s current contaminants list, which remains in effect through the end of 2025, includes 29 types of PFAS (so-called "forever chemicals" known for their toxicity at low levels) and lithium, but not mifepristone. The public comment period for the next update is expected to last 60 to 90 days, giving SFLA and its allies a window to make their case—however slim the odds may be.
As the debate over mifepristone’s place in America’s water supply unfolds, it serves as a telling example of how the abortion debate continues to evolve, finding new battlegrounds and unlikely alliances. Whether or not the EPA ultimately acts on SFLA’s request, the campaign is already shaping the conversation, reflecting the deep divisions and high stakes at the intersection of public health, environmental policy, and reproductive rights.