The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it is launching a drinking water quality study to look for traces of abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol for the first time.

Anti-abortion activists, attorneys general, and lawmakers have been lobbying for the agency to carry the study for years.

Researchers at the agency will collect water samples “from several locations in different metropolitan areas” and test them for thousands of drugs, pesticides and synthetic chemicals, including mifepristone, misoprostol, and multiple types of "forever chemicals," according to a description of the study.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 month ago (43 children)

That sounds like the kind of study we would all want.

I don’t understand how checking for prescription medication and forever chemicals in drinking water is controversial…

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago* (17 children)

    Because they're doing it with the understanding and the wish to find them not to clean up the water but to ban anything related to abortions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    It’s a study to see if prescription drugs and forever chemicals are in drinking water.

    I would like to know if prescription drugs and forever chemicals are in drinking water.

    I do not care if the people who advocated for testing for particular prescription drugs are anti abortion. It is good to know if prescription drugs and forever chemicals are in drinking water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    I do. This fda is biased and that matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    It’s a good thing they’re planning to do a scientific study then, that methodology claims to be able to root out bias.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I mean define scientific study via rfk's hhs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    It’s the same as before rfk. It’s the same people by and large as before rfk.

    Surely you can’t be suggesting a department which could conduct perfectly reasonable research before is suddenly unable to do so now?

    How can a study on the presence of thousands of different prescription drugs and other chemicals in drinking water be bad in your eyes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    No it's not.

    Sorta. Capable, possibly. Willing, not at all.

    The study itself, mm sorta here nor there. What they do with the results is the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and speak for the average American when I say that knowing if there are prescription drugs and chemicals in my drinking water isn’t “sorta here nor there”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Uh huh, then I'd say you like the average American have a critical thinking issue. Just because it sounds altruistic doesn't mean it is and assuming that to be the case in this admin is batshit crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I dont think it’s altruistic, just something everyone wants to know.

    People you disagree with or don’t want in power can do things that help you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    That's altruistic purpose bud. Ie unselfish concern.

    Assuming that to be the case is crazy. The admin and the hhs head specifically do not believe in science, assuming it'll be scientific is just amusing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    People you disagree with or don’t want in power can do things that help you.

    And this can lead to dangerous outcomes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If you read all of the article, you will see that their stated intent is to restrict access to abortion pills. This is scary because a government agency is being weaponized to lay ground work to strip rights. Neither of the hormones in those pills are on a list of environmentally damaging things.

    Given that the risk is restricting rights for a whole group of people vs an unproven. Risk to the environment, the prudent thing to do is test for the KNOWN harmful chemicals and focus on mitigating them in the environment.

    I would be in support of researching and if, after research, it was discovered that those drugs are harmful, testing for and addressing them.

    Tl;Dr There are big fish to fry in terms of environmentally damaging chemicals. Frying something that might not even be a fish, at the price of government intervention in a whole group of people, and, honestly, generation of children, is a terrible violation of privacy, and rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago

    I might have missed it but the article seemed to state two things separately, that the epa is gonna test for a bunch of stuff and some birth control compounds are included in that group and that an anti abortion group has been pushing for that for quite some time.

    Im old, so the claim that the pill gets in the water isn’t new to me. A government entity actually testing to see if it’s true is. I don’t think it’s bad to do this study.

    I think saying “no, you shouldn’t even test for it!” Does more harm to women than otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    The group has been advocating for the Trump administration to restrict access to the drug. It has alleged that as women increasingly use the abortion pills at home to terminate pregnancies, flushing the expelled tissue, traces of the pill make their way to water supply, contaminating it. The group conducted its own testing in three U.S. cities. It further has claimed that the drug is also contaminating tap water and threatening human fertility.

    While water contamination from all pharmaceuticals is a growing concern, there is no evidence that abortion pills are harming the water supply or are harmful to people.

    “I think what’s concerning here is that there’s already a culture of criminalization around abortion, especially since Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], and the potential to use this as justification for further surveillance could create more fear for abortion seekers, for providers at a time when folks are already being criminalized and for their pregnancy outcomes, including abortion,” Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser for the Guttmacher Institute, told The Hill.

    This is another way to target women who have abortions. I consider that pretty controversial for a government to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    I will not claim to be a medical professional, but testing to see if prescription drugs are in the drinking water supply seems like a good thing.

    If the anti abortion people call for testing drinking water for prescription drugs and none are found then that’s that. If traces are found then that deserves scrutiny and possible remediation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (15 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Yes. An anti abortion group which has advocated for testing drinking water for the presence of birth control drugs was quoted. It’s something they’ve been advocating for for a long time. Many years ago it was considered a kooky conspiracy talking point.

    The article describes the study as testing for thousands of chemicals. The article lists two birth control drugs among them.

    It would be good to know if those chemicals are in drinking water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    While water contamination from all pharmaceuticals is a growing concern, there is no evidence that abortion pills are harming the water supply or are harmful to people.

    Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told the outlet mifepristone is not one of the known contaminants on the EPA's list to regulate.

    “There are major water contaminants that need to be regulated, and testing for those things can be good as long as regulation happens. And then on the other hand, if we’re wasting time on a witch hunt for... those things like mifepristone, then that’s time and resources we take away from regulating and studying things that that are actually a problem,” Donley said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    A careful reader will notice that in those quotes no one is saying there isn’t presence or contamination, only that it’s nothing to worry about, is not harmful to people and isn’t on the official list of stuff the epa looks out for.

    I genuinely don’t see the big deal. Crazy people have been right about stuff before. You figure out if they’re right by investigating that stuff rather than dismissing it out of hand. Including the crazy people claims in the big water study looking for a thousand other things is a good way to save money on lab costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    It's a dangerous precedent to allow these kinds of decisions to be driven by anti-abortion and anti-women's rights activists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

    On the other hand, and bear in mind I am not a medical professional:

    These compounds are present in effluvia. The wastewater treatment system (I’m generalizing here) tries to follow the most basic downstream and upstream procedures but can still end up with significant amounts of stuff from effluent in its clean source. If we know that stuff that ought to go through the out pipe makes its way to the in pipe already, and we know of a specific chemical present in the out pipe, it seems reasonable to test for that chemical in the in pipe.

    Alternately: I don’t think finally testing something people have been saying for twenty years is a bad precedent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

    Yeah I'm going to go ahead and trust medical and wastewater professionals over you here.

    Acquiescing to anti-women's rights activists should never be an option in a fair and equal society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    It’s reasonable that you trust them.

    You did not quote them saying that there are not prescription medications in the drinking water supply. You quoted them saying “it’s fine and safe and nothing to worry about.”

    While it’s your prerogative to accept that at face value, I think it’s worth knowing if prescription drugs are in the drinking water supply.

    Furthermore, if you want to win people over to “your side” you need to actually break down and prove people you disagree with wrong with hard evidence as opposed to dismissing their claims out of hand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I'm doing nothing outside of discussing the article in depth here.

    There's a lot of people who want to tell me how to win arguments or win people over. I don't care. I'm not a Barbie doll to be molded to be the perfect feminist political commentator that charms all of you over to "my side" with my stellar manners.

    If you want to side with groups that are motivated by stripping women of their rights, you go right on ahead. I'm allowed to hold my own opinion about you based on that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I don’t think suggesting it’s worth engaging with the factual content of an argument you’re opposed to is necessarily silencing women’s voices or forcing them into a feminine mold.

    If we’re evaluating the merit of an argument based solely upon what distasteful groups also argue those points were on pretty crappy rhetorical ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    I’m not speaking for all women. I’m speaking for myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Okay, I don’t think suggesting it’s worth engaging with the factual content of an argument you’re opposed to is necessarily silencing you or forcing you into a feminine mold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    You’re misunderstanding how often I get men chirping at me to change my behavior here.

    I. Don’t. Care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Oh I just noticed your username. Sigh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I would urge you not to judge people by their username or your preconceived notions of them, famous Hanna-Barbara character.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I really thought you were trolling with that comment and that name combination.

    I get plenty of people being snarky about my username and it doesn't bother me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    The perfectly normal username of "TrollAccount69"? Yeah, ok.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Please don’t make fun of my username. I’m a serious poster, this is a serious post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)