Author: alaskaadmin

This story was originally reported by Jenae Barnes, Climate Reporter of The 19th. Meet Jenae and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.

While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans’ water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.

“What if I were to tell you that every time you fill up a glass of water at your kitchen sink from the tap, you were actually *drinking* someone else’s abortion,” influencer Isabel Brown wrote in an Instagram post in May. In the accompanying video, the Gen Z conservative content creator, who has more than 1 million followers on her platform, talks to Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion organization, and contends that anti-abortion medication is “poisoning” the water.

The claim isn’t new. For decades, anti-abortion advocates have argued that abortion medications, primarily mifepristone, pollute the environment and put pregnant people’s health at risk. But the argument has now become part of a widespread and often coordinated effort to create federal and state policy that further suppresses abortion access.

On June 5, 14 Republican state attorneys general and 19 GOP lawmakers in Congress urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify and regulate mifepristone as a water contaminant. In two concurrent letters, officials argued that the abortion medication, part of a safe and effective two-drug regimen to terminate pregnancies, is “a growing threat to the country’s waterways” and violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Alaska attorney general among those urging EPA to classify mifepristone as water contaminant

One letter was signed by attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The other letter, led by Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, made similar claims and was signed by 18 other GOP lawmakers.

Environmental health experts have consistently said there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication causes harm to the environment — or to humans. Both reproductive rights advocates and environmental scientists have said that the argument co-opts environmental policy as a pathway to weaponize and stigmatize health care.

“This is really part of a broader effort to restrict access to medication abortion,” said Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports reproductive rights. She said anti-abortion activists are increasingly turning to “every lever they can” as medication abortion has become the largest share of abortion care nationwide. Medication abortion accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute data.

---

Does oral abortion medication really end up in drinking water?

Anti-abortion advocates contend that over 50 tons of medical waste “including blood, placental tissue, and human remains” are flushed into water systems each year as a result of these drugs. They argue high concentration of the elements of mifepristone in water, specifically a hormone called progesterone, disrupts and reduces fertility in women. They also say that previous results of federal testing of mifepristone’s environmental impact are outdated.

Environmental health experts dismiss these claims. These experts consistently point out that there is no scientific basis for treating mifepristone or other abortion medication as a water contaminant. Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that mifepristone is used by a small fraction of the population and is typically taken as a one-time dose. By comparison, many pharmaceuticals taken daily by tens of millions of Americans enter wastewater systems in far greater quantities. He also noted that mifepristone was not included among nearly 700 pharmaceutical compounds the EPA previously screened for potential water contamination concerns.

Instead, Donley described the effort as an attempt to use environmental concerns as a pretext for limiting reproductive rights. He noted that while proponents are seeking to add mifepristone to the EPA’s 6th Contaminant Candidate List (CCL6), a preliminary list of substances that could potentially be considered for future drinking water regulation, placement on the list would not itself regulate the drug but could begin a lengthy review process.

Donley added that focusing on mifepristone distracts from well-documented water quality threats, including PFAS — known as forever chemicals — pesticides, lead and nitrate contamination.

“There are legitimate water quality threats that we need to attack and rectify in a regulatory manner. And then there are things that are out in the left field that just distract people,” Donley said. 

---

Where did this argument come from and why is it gaining traction again now?

In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tested for the environmental effects of mifepristone and found “no significant impact.” In the June letter, lawmakers cite the FDA study, and urge “reconsideration” of potential harm to the environment.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, opponents have increasingly focused on limiting access to abortion medication and prescribing it through telehealth, which has become a critical pathway for people living in states with abortion bans.

But anti-abortion groups have ramped up efforts during the second Trump administration to advocate for the official classification of mifepristone as a water contaminant.

Last November, Students for Life of America (SFLA), a national anti-abortion group, met with the EPA to advocate for adding mifepristone to the CCL6 as the agency carried out a routine update to a separate list of health benchmarks for pharmaceuticals that must be tracked in drinking water.

The coordinated letters in June were timed toward the EPA’s 60-day comment period, which began in April and allowed members of the public to submit their thoughts on draft proposals to be reviewed by the agency.

“SFLA asks that mifepristone be tracked, given the reasonable cause for concern that regular and ongoing exposure to a progesterone blocker is impacting public health, endangered species, and the environment,” the anti-abortion group said in a statement on their website, adding that the group plans to take on the issue in every state. “You don’t have to be pro-life to want clean drinking water. You don’t have to be pro-life to be concerned that we are being ‘microdosed’ by progesterone blockers, which are a factor in rising infertility.”

The SFLA said it collected over 1,700 public comments to send to the EPA, and helped spearhead the 14-state campaign of letters from attorneys general to the EPA ahead of its public comment period for the CCL6.

The draft for the CCL6 received nearly 22,000 public comments before closing on June 5, public records show.

---

How are lawmakers trying to change environmental abortion policies?

In 2025, anti-abortion policymakers introduced nine bills in seven states tying medication abortion to water pollution, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That same year, 25 members of Congress sent a similar letter asking the EPA to monitor for environmental harms of mifepristone. This March, U.S. Rep Mary Miller, a Republican from Illinois, introduced a Clean Water for All Life Act, citing similar claims of environmental degradation from abortion medication.

According to Bernstein and Guttmacher state policy adviser Kimya Forouzan, some proposals would require state agencies to test wastewater for abortion medications. Others would require patients to use so-called “catch kits” and medical waste bags to collect and return pregnancy tissue after taking abortion medication. Some bills would create liability for drug manufacturers if abortion medications were detected in wastewater.

While the bills vary, abortion rights advocates say they share a common goal: creating additional barriers to medication abortion access.

“The CCL is one part of a broad regulatory process. This draft list is then used to inform another list, which determines which contaminants are monitored and regulated, but the surveillance really does happen at a municipality and then state level,” Bernstein said, adding: “So this would be setting federal benchmarks for localities to monitor in their wastewater.”

To date, neither President Donald Trump nor EPA chief Lee Zeldin have explicitly spoken to any health risks of mifepristone in water. But the president and leading administration officials’ decision to stay silent on the issue may increase pressure from anti-abortion advocates, according to Bernstein.

“We anticipate that disinformation campaigns surrounding mifepristone, including these false claims on the environmental impact, will continue to escalate — particularly as abortion opponents are frustrated at a perceived lack of action by the Trump administration,” Bernstein told The 19th. “We know, however, that restricting access to abortion is politically unfavorable, and candidates may be hesitant to focus on these efforts before the midterm elections.

---

What are the stakes for pregnant people?

As abortion rights and access have shrunk, Forouzan said that medication abortion has become a “lifeline” for many people seeking care after Dobbs, particularly through telehealth providers operating under shield laws, which are state-by-state legal protections to safeguard practitioners from being sued by states with abortion bans. As a result, anti-abortion officials at the state and federal level have increasingly focused on restricting the remaining ways people can access abortion care.

Forouzan said the push to monitor abortion medication in wastewater contributes to a broader “culture of surveillance” surrounding abortion. She said proposals to test wastewater for mifepristone raise concerns about how such monitoring data could eventually be used and whether it could increase scrutiny of people who obtain medication abortions.

---

Do these claims have the potential to impact federal policy?

The potential of environmental harms continues to shape policy for abortion and anti-abortion advocates. On the anniversary of Dobbs, Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat from Colorado, submitted a resolution to address the disinformation campaign, saying that water systems should “not be weaponized for the purposes of surveilling, tracking, or detecting use of, stigmatizing, and further restricting access to medication abortion care.”

Advocates also point to what they see as a contradiction in the campaign. Many of the same advocates and elected officials who support mifepristone monitoring have opposed other environmental hazard regulations. For example, in Indiana, where the state’s attorney general co-signed the letter, state lawmakers recently passed legislation to deregulate the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, an agency in charge of limiting pollution in the state’s air, water and soil.

The EPA has already taken action to recommend states begin testing drinking water for abortion medications. In April, the agency released a list of 374 drugs that states should monitor. While it does not include mifepristone, it does include other medications used in abortions such as misoprostol and methotrexate, commonly used in daily birth control and the NuvaRing contraceptive. It’s the first time the agency has designated pharmaceuticals as a contaminant group, according to an April press release.

The EPA did not respond to The 19th’s request for comment.

The EPA’s comment period allowed 60 days for the public to weigh in on the list before agency staff began reviewing the feedback and finalizing. Now that the June comment period has closed, whether the agency will ultimately add the medication to the list remains uncertain. However, when federal regulators previously reviewed environmental concerns related to mifepristone, they found no evidence warranting restrictions, according to Bernstein.

Bernstein and Forouzan said that anti-abortion states and lawmakers often learn from each other in order to pass bills in their respective states. Forouzan added these efforts work “parallel” to federal bill proposals, both with the same goal: to restrict further access.

“Its really just to restrict access to mifepristone and specifically to roll back requirements to force in-person dispensation, which would really limit access to a lot of folks.”

Four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, reproductive advocates say the evolution of anti-abortion campaigns continue to “severely restrict” access to care across the country. Thirteen states currently enforce total bans, and 6 explicitly prohibit telehealth use to provide abortion pills, according to Guttmacher Institute.

“It’s contributing to this culture of surveillance around medication abortion at a time when that is already increasing, and folks, especially in banned states, are facing increasing fear of criminalization,” Bernstein said. “There are concerns whether it will be eventually used for the criminalization of patients, in addition to creating a broader restriction of mifepristone and perpetuating these myths.”

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Content warning: This story contains references to sexual violence and abuse of children.

A new statewide initiative aims to prevent and reduce Alaska’s pervasively high rates of child sexual abuse.

The statewide prevention plan is led by the Alaska Children’s Trust, a non-profit advocacy group focused on supporting children and families and preventing child abuse and neglect. 

Trevor Storrs, the president and CEO of the Alaska Children’s Trust, said a coordinated effort among state and community groups, service providers, schools, caregivers and youth is needed to make serious strides in intervening and preventing abuse. 

“We should not expect children to fight off these predators. We want them equipped with the tools, but it’s our job, not just as adults, but as a community and society, to make sure kids are safe,” he said. 

The plan was developed last year with a variety of statewide groups, including representatives from Child Advocacy Centers, the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, the Office of Children’s Services, which runs the state’s foster care system, law enforcement, Tribes, health care providers, lived experience experts, faith communities, and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. 

Storrs said the plan focuses on education and raising awareness, as well as preventing harm by developing and strengthening institutions so that questionable behavior is identified and stopped. 

“If we don’t keep strong boundaries established, that’s when we start opening the door and predators see their opportunity,” he said. “If we keep those strong and not have those potential openings, it actually prevents the predators from ever accessing, or anybody who’s had even a slight inclination —  they’re not being tempted to even try — and that is what our job is.”

The group launched the plan earlier this month and is providing an initial $100,000 in grant funding for prevention work in the three priority areas outlined by the initiative. Nonprofit organizations, tribes, local or state governments, schools and regional attendance areas are invited to apply by July 17. 

Alaska has some of the highest rates of sexual violence and rates of child abuse, neglect, and child sexual abuse, in the nation. Many victims delay or never report abuse. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Maltreatment report published this year noted reports of child abuse and neglect have declined somewhat since 2020, but Alaska rates in 2024 were 80% above the nationwide average.

Nationwide, American Indian and Alaska Native children have the highest rates of victimization, and in Alaska national data from the maltreatment report shows rates of abuse among American Indian or Alaska Native children are nearly three times higher than the overall statewide average.

The Alaska Children’s Trust cites a national survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2013 to 2015 that showed on average one in five Alaska children experience sexual abuse. A 2023 report from the Alaska Children’s Justice Act Task Force showed that an estimated one in seven children will experience an allegation of sexual abuse before their 12th birthday.

“The majority of child abuse and neglect cases that are substantiated are neglect, then it’s physical, and then it’s a small fraction of child sexual abuse,” Storrs said. But sexual abuse can have severe impacts on a child’s development, according to the CDC, with short and long term effects, including chronic health conditions, mental health issues and even post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. 

Child sexual abuse is defined as any sexual activity between a child and adult or a child and another child that the child does not fully understand, does not consent to or is not developmentally prepared for and therefore cannot consent to. In Alaska, lawmakers this year changed the law to raise the age of consent to 18 years old.  

An estimated 90% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child or the child’s family, according to the CDC. 

Perpetrators can exploit what Storrs calls “natural trust” to get close to a child, including people in positions like a coach, teacher, religious leader or friend of the family, in a pattern of behavior called grooming.

“Grooming is developing that relationship, developing a trust with the family that the child can be left alone with them,” Storrs said. “The trust with the child where their interactions may feel awkward, but are okay. The trust that it’s okay to keep secrets. They really build that trust and build that relationship that then allows them to abuse the child, to do what they do. And you see that in story after story when you talk to a survivor of child sexual abuse, they talk about the relationship.” 

Storrs says addressing the stigma to intervene when behavior is inappropriate, also means implementing proper protocols for adults interacting with kids. He said for example, coaches should not text youth individually, but include parents in all communications. 

That extends to online safety, he said. Nationally, there are increasing rates of predatory behavior and “sextortion,” a form of blackmail where perpetrators threaten to disclose information or images unless the victims make specific demands. Storrs said caregivers should talk with children and youth about what is and isn’t appropriate, in person and online.  

“It’s also making sure that your child understands what the expectations and rules are, as well, of what it’s like to interact with an adult, and what are those boundaries,” he said. 

Storrs said in raising awareness of potentially predatory behavior, it’s also important to trust children when they disclose inappropriate behavior. 

“A lot of kids don’t disclose that X is happening, what they start disclosing is, ‘I don’t feel comfortable, I don’t want to go. I don’t like hanging out with this person anymore.’ They don’t feel connected,” he said. “That’s a sign.”

The statewide prevention plan likens preventing child sexual abuse to wildfire prevention. That means reducing risks, setting safety codes, educating communities and monitoring high risk situations — to prevent harm. 

Three approaches to prevention

The statewide prevention plan has a three-pronged approach: educate and mobilize, cultivate safer environments and act early to prevent harm.

Storrs says all three involve children, families, and community-wide efforts, and the plan calls for local advocacy groups, service providers, schools and governments to gather community input and develop their own child sexual abuse prevention programs and resources best fit around cultural values. The initiative calls for local communities to develop and strengthen systems for children to safely report harm without fear of punishment and family disruption. 

The first prong focuses on education: increasing awareness and reducing stigma, and increasing the number of people able to take action proactively. That means training for youth-focused employees like teachers and coaches, and building in protocols for reporting and addressing inappropriate behavior. It also involves providing educational resources for parents and caregivers on healthy boundaries, warning signs, and how to respond to concerns. 

The plan calls for education and resources for children and youth on what’s appropriate. Storrs says the plan suggests children receive human development education, not necessarily sex education, so that children develop an understanding of consent, their body anatomy and healthy relationships. 

“When you talk to a child about something, it does not give a child permission to engage in something or to act inappropriately,” he said, adding that teaching kids about sex does not give them permission to have it in the same way that teaching kids about car accidents doesn’t give them permission to drive recklessly. 

Education is aimed at empowering children to identify when physical boundaries have been violated, Storrs said. “So when a kid needs to talk about any of their private areas or someone is trying to talk about it or touch it, they’re able to know what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate,” he said. 

Similarly, reducing shame and stigma can empower children to talk with an adult or caregiver when they’ve experienced or seen adults behaving inappropriately. Children should know that adults should never ask them to keep secrets, Storrs said, and when inappropriate behavior has occurred they can get help to stop it from continuing. 

The second prong, “cultivating safer environments,” calls for state and local governments, Tribes and service organizations to support programs and policies that help families meet essential basic needs to address conditions that put children at risk for sexual abuse.

Storrs noted that children and families with unstable housing, inadequate child care or health care can create circumstances that put children at higher risk. 

“Our safety net plays a critical part in keeping kids safe, not just of child sexual abuse, but child abuse in general,” he said. “We know when families have stable housing, food security, all those things, it puts less stress on the family.”

The plan calls for increasing safety of physical and digital spaces where youth spend time, and local community organizations to hold listening sessions in communities to identify risk factors and best prevention strategies.

The third prong aims to prevent harm by increasing access to resources to respond to harmful sexual attitudes or behaviors. That includes addressing people who have harmed or are at risk of harming children.

“I truly believe there’s more gray in our world ever than there is black and white,” Storrs said. “And there are definitely individuals who are 100% predators, and it’s very clear. Then you have individuals that may have some thoughts, but don’t act on it, or it’s controlled internally by themselves and by within the society they are.”

The approach includes responding to harmful and problematic sexual behavior among youth. Storrs said with youth having access to graphic sexual material online, problematic behaviors and attitudes may arise. The plan aims to expand treatment and support services for youth to address harmful behaviors.  

“We’re seeing that kids are sexually maturing faster or becoming more hypersexual at a much younger age without the knowledge, skills, supports and resources to then deal with it or understand it,” Storrs said. “And if kids do not have an adult to talk to, or have learned this information, it starts creating hyper sexual experiences, which then can lead to this harmful sexual behavior.”

Alaska has unique challenges with rural and remote communities having less access to services, Storrs said, as well as grappling with legacies of trauma and adversity. He said the initiative aims to push a statewide focus and investment in policies and programs that support children and families that can help prevent harm. The plan is a collaborative effort, he said, and in the first year advocates with the Alaska Children’s Trust will visit communities to discuss the plan, help raise awareness, identify gaps and strengthen protocols and safer environments to prevent abuse.

“What we want to create that’s very clear in our community, in our state, that we as a community are watching and will not stand for any type of inappropriate behavior with our kids,” Storrs said. “And we will say something, we will step in, and you won’t be allowed.”

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE