Advancing Life and Liberty Through Action

URGENT ACTION ALERT: Ask Government Officials to monitor chemical abortion drugs in our water. It only takes 60 seconds.


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently opened a unique comment period for the sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6). This rule is EPA's tool for actually monitoring dangerous contaminants in drinking water, requiring public water systems to gather real-world data on the levels of 30 different pollutants in American drinking water.

Our recommendation: Add dangerous abortion pill contaminants.

Mifepristone, the first of two chemical abortion pills, is the only drug that was designed and approved by the FDA to be lethal in purpose - ending a pre-born life and generating medical waste. And it was just found in the tap water of two American cities at levels warranting public health concern.

Like the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), the UCMR is intended to equip the EPA as it determines which contaminants carry a significant enough health risk to qualify for regulations or risk management decisions, including National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) that establish "maximum contaminant levels" (MCLs). Monitoring allows the EPA to obtain the real-world data needed to assess nationwide exposure to these health-harming chemicals.

And it is only developed once every five years. Given the health risks of ingesting trace mifepristone contaminants, they need to be on the UCMR 6 this year. Delay could result in continued exposure of Americans to these hormone-blocking chemicals.

The UCMR 6 is currently a proposal, meaning your input can make a big difference to the final version!

The comment period is only open until August 30th. Join us in urging the EPA to monitor the abortion drug mifepristone in our drinking water by submitting a comment today!

  • To submit a concise, pre-prepared comment (60 SECOND OPTION), click here.
  • To submit your own, unique comment utilizing our "Top 20" reasons to place mifepristone on CCL 6, click here.
  • For answers to frequently asked questions, click here.
  • To read LCA's official comment, click here.

While any action will make an impact, comments reflecting unique perspectives are particularly powerful. As the federal government outlines, agencies “must respond to relevant and significant comments,” and “the perspective of individual persons” is especially valuable!



Submit a concise pre-prepared comment

Click here to send the comment below to the EPA's Office of Water today*!

Subject line (Docket Number Required): RE: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469 | Urgent Need to Add Mifepristone & Its Active Metabolites to UCMR 6

Dear officials at the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center,

I respectfully urge the EPA to add mifepristone and its active metabolites to the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6). Mifepristone clearly meets the criteria to be placed on the UCMR: It has never been monitored, it has been detected in American tap water, there are drinking water methods that can test for it, the public and high-profile stakeholders have indicated extreme interest in these contaminants, and as the only FDA-approved drug designed to end a life, it presents clear health risks.

Most notably, a recently published peer-reviewed article reported detectable levels of mifepristone in eight of nine water-sampling groups across three American cities, including treated drinking water samples. This is concerning because mifepristone is no ordinary pharmaceutical. It is a potent anti-progesterone drug designed to block progesterone, a hormone essential to the health of men and women, especially for fertility.

Corroborating the above, chemical abortion contaminates pollute our water in two ways: From the chemicals of the abortion drug itself, and from the biological material –the aborted human fetal remains and related medical waste – generated by its use. Specifically:

  • Mifepristone forms three active metabolites in the body that are eliminated from the body after use.
  • These metabolites retain the therapeutic effect of blocking a vital fertility hormone, progesterone, rendering them endocrine disruptors.
  • As chemical abortions now account for the majority of abortions in the United States, annually, approximately 700,000 women dispose of aborted human remains down the toilet– often directed by abortion providers to do so.

As a result, an estimated 30-60 tons of aborted human fetal remains and medical waste - and the mifepristone chemicals that generated that waste - enter our wastewater systems. This growing use, alongside the fact that drinking water treatments do not fully remove this sort of contamination, means the possibility of widespread drinking water occurrence deserves serious investigation. This is especially true when considered alongside the risks to human health and fertility: The “Serious Warnings and Precautions” section of a product information document on the drug states, “mifepristone and misoprostol are embryotoxic and have been associated with fetal abnormalities.” It is reasonable to be concerned that ingesting trace amounts of this embryotoxic substance while pregnant may pose a risk of harm to developing fetuses, as well as to the general health of all Americans.

Consider also that the EPA has devoted significant resources to studying endocrine-disrupting contaminants, such as PFAS. Two of them have maximum contaminant levels of 4 parts per trillion. Mifepristone and its active metabolites act as endocrine-disruptors and have been found in drinking water as high as 39 parts per trillion. They deserve similar attention and ultimately, maximum contaminant levels.

The central issue is simple: we do not yet have sufficient nationwide occurrence data. The appropriate scientific response to uncertainty is monitoring, not inaction. If mifepristone and its active metabolites are present in drinking water sources, the public deserves to know where, at what levels, and whether those levels pose risks to human health, especially pregnant women and their developing children (not to mention wildlife and aquatic ecosystems).

As the EPA only updates the UCMR once every five years, I respectfully ask the EPA to include mifepristone and its active metabolites on the final UCMR 6 list and begin collecting national occurrence data as soon as possible. Delaying monitoring could postpone critical research and risk assessment for years.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Name]

Create your own comment!

To submit your own, unique comment*:
  1. Select your favorite reasons to add mifepristone and its active metabolites to UCMR 6 from our "Top 20" list below and paste them into an email.
  2. See our example introductory and concluding remarks and modify to your unique reasons for writing in.
  3. Include your name and contact information at the end of the email in case those reading it have questions.
  4. Copy and paste the following Docket ID Number into your subject line: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469. Very important to include the Docket ID Number.
  5. Send the email to [email protected].
  6. Post our webpage on your social media and encourage others to submit as well!
Alternatively, you can submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469-0097 (the EPA's preferred method). To do so:
  1. Copy your favorite reasons from below and paste them into the "Comment" section.
  2. See our example introductory and concluding remarks and modify them to your unique reasons for writing in.
  3. Follow all the instructions on the page and be sure to fill out each relevant field. Note: There is a reCAPTCHA.
  4. Click submit.
Subject: Regarding Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469

Suggested Introduction: Summarize in your own words why you believe mifepristone and its active metabolites need to be placed on UCMR 6. For example:
Dear Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center,

I am writing today as a (mother / father / student / concerned citizen) regarding the potential health hazard posed by mifepristone contamination in our water supply. While there are numerous reasons to ensure mifepristone and its active metabolites are placed on the EPA’s final UCMR 6, I would like to highlight the following:
Body: Select your top reasons from among the following "Top-20 Reasons to Place Chemical Abortion Pill Contaminants on CCL 6" (copy and paste a mix of these):

1. Mifepristone has already been detected in U.S. drinking water.
A recently published peer-reviewed study reported the presence of mifepristone in multiple U.S. water samples, including municipal tap water. That fact alone justifies nationwide monitoring through UCMR 6.

2. The EPA cannot perform adequate risk assessments without real-world data.
The purpose of UCMR is to gather occurrence data on emerging contaminants. If mifepristone is already appearing in water samples, the EPA should collect nationwide data to determine how widespread this contamination is, and whether detected levels pose risks to human health, especially pregnant women and their developing children.

3. Mifepristone is not an ordinary pharmaceutical.
Mifepristone is unique among pharmaceuticals, being the only one developed and FDA-approved to end a life. It does so by blocking progesterone, a vital hormone for pregnancy. A drug with such powerful endocrine-disrupting effects deserves heightened scrutiny beyond that which is currently being proposed by the CCL 6 pharmaceutical group.

4. Active metabolites matter.
Scientific literature shows that mifepristone produces three metabolites that remain biologically active and retain anti-progesterone properties. Over 50% of the most common drugs “are excreted in higher amounts as metabolites [than the parent compound].” Monitoring should include mifepristone’s active metabolites, not just the parent drug.

5. Pharmaceuticals commonly enter the environment through human excretion.
The EPA has acknowledged that pharmaceuticals often enter the environment through human excretion — this is true for mifepristone. As wastewater and drinking water systems do not fully remove many of these compounds, they go into our lakes, streams, rivers, and eventually, our tap water.

6. Chemical abortions now occur on a massive scale, contributing to “pseudo persistence.”
Hundreds of thousands of women use mifepristone each year in the United States and excrete its active compounds into our water. As mifepristone is slow to biodegrade, the continual addition of it into our water systems makes it “pseudo-persistent” and creates a significant threat to our drinking water quality.

7. The increasing rates of infertility in America correlate to increasing use of the chemical abortion drug.
As use of the abortion pill, mifepristone, has increased from 6 percent in 2001 to 65 percent in 2023, and likely even higher today, fertility rates have declined. While correlation does not necessarily equate to causation, the absence of comprehensive monitoring data does not mean there is no risk. It means we need more information, which is exactly what UCMR 6 is designed to provide.

8. There are multiple potential analytical methods available.
A 2025 New York Times article outlined that “Scientists who specialize in chemical detection told the senior officials that there are currently no E.P.A.-approved methods for identifying mifepristone in wastewater — but that new methods could be developed.” In addition, Liberty Counsel Action compiled information from peer-reviewed studies on various methodologies for testing water for mifepristone and pharmaceutical metabolites in its comment to the EPA on the UCMR 6. Some are similar to the EPA’s testing method, “Determination of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS).” Utilizing the information in the compiled studies, it should be possible to determine the best way(s) to monitor mifepristone and its active metabolites in time for implementation.

9. Other endocrine disruptors receive EPA attention.
Per the EPA, possible adverse effects of EDCs include: “developmental malformations; interference with reproduction; increased cancer risk; and disturbances in the immune and nervous system function.” Furthermore, the EPA has devoted significant resources to studying endocrine-disrupting contaminants, such as PFAS. Two of them have maximum contaminant levels of 4 parts per trillion. Mifepristone and its active metabolites act as endocrine-disruptors and have been found in drinking water as high as 39 parts per trillion. They deserve similar attention and ultimately, maximum contaminant levels.

10. Peer-reviewed research outlines that mifepristone residues in our environment are “one of the most alarming public health concerns.”
A 2024 study in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research summarizes other research on the same and succinctly presents the threat of mifepristone: “Mifepristone residues in the aquatic environment have recently grown to be one of the most alarming public health concerns. Mifepristone has the potential to be hazardous to [aquatic] life and humans, and it has been linked to the fast growth of endocrine disruptors in the environment . . . Mifepristone is widely distributed in the environment, and several studies that have been published using various analytical techniques demonstrate the ongoing interest in and intense level of research effort on this compound’s presence in the environment.”

11. Mifepristone has been detected in international waters.
Research has documented mifepristone in wastewaters in other countries, demonstrating this is not an isolated concern: a 2010 scientific study outlines that mifepristone has been detected in both hospital wastewaters and wastewater treatment plant effluent in China, and a 2014 scientific study detected mifepristone in Swiss wastewaters.

12. Scientists are calling for more investigation.
Researchers who have studied mifepristone in water state that “significant additional investigation into the levels . . . of mifepristone” in water is needed.

13. Monitoring is a first step, providing a needed response to input from numerous members of the public and high-profile stakeholders.
Over a thousand members of the public requested the EPA add mifepristone to the CCL 6, along with 19 Members of Congress, 14 Attorneys General, and multiple public policy organizations. Adding mifepristone to UCMR 6 is the logical next, needed step, allowing the EPA to gather occurrence information and make informed regulatory decisions based on real-world data.

14. Nationwide occurrence data does not exist.
The United States currently lacks comprehensive national monitoring data on mifepristone contamination in drinking water systems. UCMR 6 can fill that gap.

15. Wildlife studies raise concerns.
Several studies have reported reproductive and developmental effects in aquatic species exposed to mifepristone, demonstrating the need for further environmental evaluation: 
  • A 2019 study on sea urchins found “a decrease in fertility and embryo development” in females.
  • A 2019 study on Nile tilapia found “long-term exposure” of mifepristone “resulted in sex reversal” of females.
  • Studies in 2023 and 2024 on African clawed frogs found likely harms, with the 2024 study explicitly finding “Mifepristone caused a reduction in the reproductive success in exposed females.”
  • Studies in 2024 and 2025 on tiger puffer fish found mifepristone exposure induces masculinization in females.
16. The current proposal to monitor pharmaceuticals in a future UCMR doesn’t account for the urgent risks posed by mifepristone contamination.
The EPA has recognized pharmaceutical contamination as a public concern both in the sixth draft CCL by proposing a pharmaceutical group, and with the recently published Human Health Benchmarks for Pharmaceuticals (HHB-Rx) in Drinking Water. However, there are thousands of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals, and the HHB-Rx entirely overlooks the abortion pill and its metabolites generally. While mifepristone should be a top priority, under the current framework, it will likely be ignored. Given the risks posed to human reproduction, the EPA should add mifepristone and its active metabolites to the UCMR 6.

17. Mifepristone satisfies UCMR criteria.
By the EPA's own selection criteria, mifepristone and its active metabolites qualify for inclusion on the final UCMR6: It has not previously been monitored under a UCMR' it is feasible to obtain a “validated drinking water method” in time for implementation; available “health-effects information” demonstrates a risk of harm to human health; there is clear “public interest;” “active use” of abortion drugs is increasing: a recently published peer reviewed study reports the presence of mifepristone in the drinking water of two American cities, providing “occurrence data;” and 19 Members of Congress, 14 Attorneys General, and multiple public policy organizations have provided high-profile “stakeholder input” on abortion pill pollution. Finally, while considerations of cost-effectiveness are subjective, they should not preclude action. To mitigate the cost to taxpayers, the EPA should work with Congress to implement a “polluter pays” model — abortion pill manufacturers and providers should pay to clean up the pollution they caused.

18. The American people deserve transparency.
Americans have a right to know whether compounds designed to interfere with reproductive hormones are entering public drinking water systems. To know whether mifepristone and its active metabolites in our water are causing harm to human health, we need to know: Is it in certain areas or widespread? At what levels is it contaminating our water? Who has been exposed? Do the populations in areas with higher concentrations have higher rates of infertility or other reproductive issues? Data obtained by the UCMR 6 can assist in answering these questions.

19. Waiting another five years is unnecessary.
The EPA has proposed to monitor pharmaceuticals in a future UCMR. Delaying the inclusion of mifepristone and its metabolites, along with other pharmaceuticals, ignores the health threats posed by these chemicals, postponing important data collection and risk assessment for years. Consider as well that the EPA recognized PFAS risks in 2006 by launching the PFOA Stewardship Program — yet they were not monitored until 2013, and it was another 11 years prior to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) being established in 2024 and 18 years from determining risk to establishing a regulation. I urge swifter action on mifepristone and its active metabolites based on the ongoing, present risks that they pose to human health and fertility.

20. Progesterone is vital, mifepristone blocks it, and over a million Americans are not getting enough of it.
Progesterone is vital for wildlife, men, and women. Indeed, to conceive and remain pregnant, women often require progesterone supplementation. In 2024 alone, over fertility support, and this likely represents only a fraction of those who could benefit from it. With so many needing progesterone, we need to ask if our drinking water is laced with progesterone-blocking mifepristone contaminants. This alone suggests it warrants inclusion in the final UCMR 6.

Suggested Closing: Copy and paste the below and modify to your specific circumstances.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the EPA to add mifepristone and its active metabolites to UCMR 6 so that national occurrence data can be collected and science-based decisions can be made to protect our drinking water quality, and ultimately, the reproductive health of all Americans.


FAQs
 
1. What is the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR)?

The UCMR is list of, at a maximum, 30 drinking water contaminants that: “Are not regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,” “are known or anticipated to occur at PWSs,” and “may warrant regulation under the SDWA.” These contaminants are then monitored by public water systems. It is compiled by the EPA every 5 years, subject to public input.

2. Why should mifepristone and its metabolites be on UCMR 6?
  • Peer-reviewed researchfound mifepristone in the municipal tap water of two American cities. Widespread home use of chemical abortion drugs — with approximately 700,000 chemical abortions occurring annually — suggests it is likely contaminating other cities nationwide.
  • Mifepristone and its active metabolites pose endocrine disruption (interference with natural hormonal processes) risks in wildlife and humans. Specifically, the abortion drug mifepristone blocks a vital fertility hormone, progesterone, and its active metabolites likely retain this ability after elimination and entering our water systems. As conventional water treatments are not designed to remove these sorts of contaminants, American drinking water could be contaminated with trace levels of a hormone-blocking substance — and we know some is. This could affect animal and human health and fertility, regardless of sex.
  • There is a lack of updated environmental data relative to the current level of mifepristone usage. Specifically, the last known U.S. environmental review for mifepristone dates back to a 1996 environmental assessment. The study itself was entirely inadequate even at the time, and now it is woefully outdated and arguably irrelevant given that the use of the chemical abortion pill protocol has increased dramatically since its approval — from a mere 6 percent of all clinician-provided abortions in 2001 to now encompassing the vast majority of abortions (approximately 70 percent).
These effects in wildlife suggest possible similar impacts on humans who are exposed chronically through drinking water.

In short, mifepristone and its active metabolites present a great health risk. Not only should mifepristone and its active metabolites be on UCMR 6 — we believe they should be among those contaminants the EPA ultimately regulates.

(Note: Ultimately, we propose that the “polluter pays” model be utilized with any regulation related to mifepristone. In other words, the water treatment plants that would be testing their waters to determine the level of mifepristone present should not be paying to mitigate the pollution caused by the pharmaceutical companies and abortion industry advocates that championed the abortion pill — the abortion industry should pay.)

3. If mifepristone and its metabolites are placed on UCMR 6, what happens next?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates contaminants on this list and uses the occurrence data for “regulatory and other risk management decisions for drinking water contaminants.” (Of note, it is ultimately up to the Administrator to determine whether “regulation of the contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reductions for persons served by public water systems”).

4. Will lives be saved / is this pro-life?

Bringing attention to the environmental harm caused by the chemical abortion pill has huge potential to save lives. Asking the EPA to place it on UCMR 6 specifically has the potential to lead to further research and regulation. Though ultimately it should be prohibited, if it is not, and if it is regulated as it should be — by, for example, requiring women to remain in a clinic for an abortion, or at the least, require that they collect the aborted human fetal remains for proper disposal (rather than flushing them down the toilet) — it will certainly save lives.

Additionally, even for those who are not pro-life, environmental safety is also pro-common sense!

5. Will my action actually make a difference?

YES! The federal government itself states: "An important way for Americans to influence the policies impacting their lives is by interacting directly with federal agencies on the regulations those agencies create. Federal law generally provides organizations and individuals with opportunities to comment on agencies’ proposed regulations."

Indeed, though usually we think of “laws” as being passed by Congress, many of our nation’s legal requirements are actually “regulations” or “rules” issued by agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, not laws passed by Congress. Even so, “Regulations, like statutes passed by Congress, are law . . . Regulations can establish significant policies and requirements for individual citizens, state and local governments, small businesses, and organizations large and small.”

Hence, we encourage you to either use our tool to submit a pre-drafted comment, or submit your own unique comment to the EPA.

If you would like to sign up for more Liberty Counsel Action alerts, subscribe here: https://lcaction.org/subscribe

 
Please enter a valid phone number to opt in to our text alerts. Format: (000) 000-0000.

*Please be aware that the EPA may publish your comment online to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, and "Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to the EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute." For more information, see the “Public Participation” heading at Federal Register: Revisions To Establish the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for Public Water Systems.

Other methods of submission:

By Mail to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Docket Center
OW Docket
Mail code: 28221T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460

Hand deliver/Courier to: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except Federal Holidays).

Founded in 1986, Liberty Counsel Action is a law and policy education, training and advocacy organization. From offices in Washington, DC and Orlando, Florida, LCA advances religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, the family, responsible government, national security, and support for Israel at the federal, state, and local levels. All contributions are made with the understanding that this ministry has complete discretion and control over use of donated funds. If the project described is fully funded, delayed or canceled, excess funds will be committed to the need most closely identified with the purpose for which the funds were originally given. Liberty Counsel Action is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Donations are not tax deductible. Privacy Policy.