Opinion: Weaponizing Wastewater Laws to Block Abortion – Undark Magazine

Report on the Intersection of Reproductive Rights and Environmental Policy in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to SDG 3 and SDG 5

Recent efforts to restrict access to medication abortion in the United States represent a significant challenge to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). Access to safe and effective reproductive healthcare, including miscarriage management and abortion services, is a critical component of Target 3.7, which aims to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services. The drugs mifepristone and misoprostol are central to this care. However, they face numerous legal and regulatory challenges, including state-level bans and a recent Louisiana law classifying them as controlled substances. These restrictions impede bodily autonomy and access to essential health services, undermining progress toward gender equality as outlined in SDG 5.

Weaponization of Environmental Law and its Impact on SDG 16

Anti-abortion organizations, notably Students for Life of America (SFLA), have initiated a campaign to utilize environmental regulations as a means to block access to medication abortion. This strategy raises concerns regarding SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), as it involves leveraging legal and scientific institutions for purposes outside their intended scope. Key actions in this campaign include:

• Lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop methods for detecting mifepristone in wastewater, based on a request from Congressional Republicans.
• Filing multiple petitions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demanding that patients collect and return aborted fetal tissue as medical waste.
• Submitting a legal brief in a Supreme Court case arguing, without evidence, that mifepristone poses a threat to endangered species.
• Requesting that the EPA mandate drinking water monitoring for mifepristone.
• Appropriating environmental terminology by labeling mifepristone a “forever chemical,” a term used for highly toxic and persistent PFAS compounds.

This co-opting of environmental law for an anti-abortion agenda risks eroding public trust in regulatory bodies and misdirects resources from genuine environmental threats, thereby weakening the effectiveness and integrity of these institutions.

The State of Water Quality and Environmental Justice: A Conflict with SDG 6 and SDG 10

The campaign’s focus on mifepristone in wastewater contrasts sharply with the documented, systemic failures in U.S. water pollution control, which directly impacts SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). While there is no evidence that abortifacients pose a risk in wastewater systems, significant and under-addressed sources of contamination persist.

1. Wastewater systems are widely contaminated with underregulated industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals like antibiotics and analgesics, and other pollutants.
2. Thousands of industrial facilities illegally discharge pollutants into surface waters annually.
3. Wastewater regulations for two-thirds of polluting industries have not been updated in over three decades.

Furthermore, these environmental failings exacerbate societal inequalities, in direct opposition to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Vulnerable populations, particularly communities of color and low-income households, are disproportionately located near polluting facilities and are less likely to receive federal funding for water infrastructure improvements. The misdirection of regulatory attention toward mifepristone diverts focus from addressing these pressing environmental justice issues and protecting communities that already bear the greatest burden of chemical exposure and its adverse reproductive and developmental health effects.

Case Study: The Human Impact of Regulatory Burdens

The practical implications of the proposed regulations are illustrated by the experiences of individuals undergoing miscarriage management. A case involving the use of misoprostol for an incomplete miscarriage highlights the physically and emotionally arduous nature of the process. The medication, while a critical healthcare option, can cause intense pain and bleeding. The proposal by SFLA to require patients to collect and return fetal tissue would impose an additional layer of psychological distress and humiliation, forcing individuals to sift through bodily waste during a painful medical event. Such a requirement is fundamentally at odds with the principles of compassionate healthcare and well-being enshrined in SDG 3. It removes patient agency and control during a time of vulnerability, undermining rather than supporting health outcomes.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The use of environmental arguments to restrict abortion access is a thinly veiled assault on reproductive rights that misuses regulatory frameworks and distracts from authentic environmental crises. This strategy directly obstructs progress on multiple Sustainable Development Goals, including Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3), Gender Equality (SDG 5), Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6), Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), and Strong Institutions (SDG 16). Instead of pursuing unsubstantiated claims against essential medicines, legislative and regulatory efforts should be directed toward strengthening outdated wastewater laws, funding the agencies tasked with their implementation, and addressing the significant environmental justice disparities that harm vulnerable communities. This approach would align with a genuine commitment to public health, environmental protection, and the global pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article’s central theme is reproductive health, specifically access to medication (misoprostol and mifepristone) for managing miscarriages and abortions. It details the personal health experience of the author and discusses the broader implications of restricting access to these essential healthcare services.
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article frames the restrictions on abortion access as a “movement to strip women of their bodily autonomy.” This directly relates to gender equality by focusing on women’s rights to make decisions about their own bodies and health, which is a fundamental aspect of their empowerment.
3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • The article discusses the weaponization of environmental laws concerning wastewater. It highlights significant existing problems, such as “underregulated industrial chemicals,” illegal dumping of pollutants, and outdated wastewater regulations, connecting the political debate on abortion to the real-world challenges of water quality and sanitation.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article explicitly points out environmental injustice, stating that “poor people and people of color are more likely to live close to facilities releasing a toxic stew of wastewater” and are “less likely to get federal funding for infrastructure upgrades and clean-up.” This addresses the unequal distribution of environmental burdens and access to resources based on race and economic status.
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article details how political and activist groups are using legal and regulatory systems (e.g., petitions to the FDA and EPA, court cases like U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine) to challenge established healthcare access. This relates to the functioning of justice systems, the rule of law, and the responsiveness of institutions to political pressure.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.7: “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.”
   • The entire article is about the struggle to maintain access to reproductive healthcare services, specifically medication abortion and miscarriage management. The legal and political challenges to mifepristone and misoprostol directly threaten this target.
2. Target 5.6: “Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”
   • The article describes efforts to restrict abortion pills as an assault on “bodily autonomy.” State-level bans and the criminalization of possessing these drugs are direct barriers to women exercising their reproductive rights, which this target aims to protect.
3. Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater.”
   • The author, an environmental lawyer, points out that “two-thirds of polluting industries have not had their wastewater regulations updated in more than 30 years” and that “thousands of facilities illegally dump pollutants.” This highlights a failure to meet the goal of reducing pollution and improving water quality.
4. Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.”
   • The article notes that “communities with larger populations of color are less likely to get federal funding for infrastructure upgrades and clean-up.” This points to a discriminatory practice in funding allocation that leads to unequal outcomes in health and environmental safety, which this target seeks to eliminate.
5. Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”
   • The article details how anti-abortion groups are using the legal system, including filing petitions and court briefs, to “weaponize environmental laws against medication abortion.” This manipulation of legal processes to restrict access to healthcare services raises questions about equal access to justice and the application of the rule of law.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 3.7: The legal status and accessibility of abortion medications.
   • The article implies this indicator by discussing states with “total abortion bans,” laws that “ban their use for abortion via telehealth,” and Louisiana’s classification of mifepristone and misoprostol as “controlled substances.” Tracking the number and type of such restrictive laws serves as a measure of access.
2. For Target 5.6: The number of laws and policies that restrict bodily autonomy.
   • The article mentions bills introduced in several states (Arizona, Idaho, Maine, etc.) that “would require patients to collect and return their expelled fetal tissue as medical waste.” The introduction and passage of such laws are a direct indicator of the erosion of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.
3. For Target 6.3: The proportion of industrial wastewater regulations that are current.
   • The article provides a direct metric by stating, “two-thirds of polluting industries have not had their wastewater regulations updated in more than 30 years.” This percentage is a clear indicator of the lack of progress in managing industrial water pollution.
4. For Target 10.3: Disparities in federal funding for environmental infrastructure.
   • The article implies this indicator by stating that “communities with larger populations of color are less likely to get federal funding for infrastructure upgrades and clean-up.” Measuring the distribution of such funds across different demographic groups would serve as an indicator of inequality.
5. For Target 16.3: The number of legal and administrative petitions filed to restrict access to established health services.
   • The article mentions that the SFLA group has “petitioned the FDA seven more times” and filed briefs in Supreme Court cases. The frequency and nature of these legal challenges can be used as an indicator of how the justice system is being used to limit, rather than ensure, access to rights.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: undark.org