Texas Wants to Test the Water for Birth Control Pills

4.14.25

Click to skip ahead: Legislation Watch looks at a bill in Texas that would mandate testing the water for evidence of birth control hormones. In the States, news from Nebraska, Colorado and Idaho. Attacks on Democracy focuses on the Missouri GOP’s attempts to repeal Amendment 3. Hypocrisy Alert with news about a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital. In the Nation has a few quick hits. Finally, AED in Conversation with info on tomorrow’s livestream!

---

Legislation Watch

Have a bit of breaking news for you today, but first—some context:

For over two years, I’ve been tracking the absurd anti-abortion lie that mifepristone is poisoning our groundwater. The claim—pushed primarily by Students for Life (SLF)—is that when people self-manage abortions at home and flush fetal tissue, they’re somehow contaminating the environment with dangerous chemicals.

The idea isn’t just to paint abortion pills as toxic, but to shame patients: SFL has been lobbying the FDA to force women to bag up their blood and return it to a doctor as medical waste. One of the reasons conservatives hate abortion medication so much is that it robs them of the ability to harass patients outside of clinics. At least this way, they could punish and humiliate those who have the audacity to end their pregnancies in the comfort and privacy of their own homes.

Of course, Republicans won’t admit this is about finding new ways to ban abortion or punish patients. Instead, they insist they’re just trying to protect the environment. (Suddenly they care about clean water?!) We’ve seen so-called “Clean Water” legislation introduced in Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Maine, Idaho, and West Virginia.

You may remember that while tracking these bills last year, I warned that they would never stop with abortion medication:

“If they are somehow successful in this nightmare, how long do you think it will be before they start arguing that hormonal birth control is poisoning the planet?”

Well—here we are. Today, the Texas Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard from Sen. Bryan Hughes on SB 1976, a bill that would force wastewater treatment plants to test for abortion medication and hormones found in birth control.

And while the bill doesn’t say ‘birth control’ or ‘contraception’ outright—instead just listing the hormones associated with contraception—Hughes told the committee outright today that he wants to test for “contaminants of emerging concern (CECs)…found in medications such as birth control pills.”

The Republican senator, who crafted the state’s abortion ban, told the committee that the medication poses a potential risk to “human and wildlife” health, “especially for pregnant women and children.”

“This is a growing concern around the country, and it’s not a left or right issue—it’s a health issue,” Hughes said. (This, from a man responsible for the deaths of countless Texas women.)

Something else important: In addition to mandating testing for abortion medication and birth control pills, SB 1976 may also be targeting gender affirming care. The legislation would require certain wastewater plants to test for testosterone and estrone. These are naturally-occurring hormones, but conservatives could argue that an increase in either is proof that more people are getting gender-affirming treatment—or that the hormones are harming the environment.

The bill also calls for testing for pregnanediol—the main urinary byproduct of the hormone progesterone, which is associated with pregnancy. I don’t know why Republicans would want to test the water for increases in a pregnancy hormone, but I can’t imagine it’s good!

Finally, in an effort to make their bizarre surveillance effort seem more credible, Republicans are also asking for the testing of real environmental contaminants (like BPA and benzophenone), along with abortion medication, birth control pills, and other hormones. Not only does this give their legislation the veneer of environmental concern, it normalizes treating abortion and birth control as ‘pollutants’.

Why advance this particular strategy right now? Well, it has no small part to do with the rise of RFK, Jr—the baby bear-killing maniac who leads the HHS and is obsessed with water ‘contaminants’. SFL is even calling the legislation part of a “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.

They’re also trying to reach young people—who hate abortion bans, but care deeply about the environment. Anti-abortion groups decided to hone in on the fake issue after doing polling that found messaging about “environmental justice” and clean water would appeal to a younger demographic—one conservatives are desperately trying to appeal to.

They’re not even trying to hide the cynicism. Here’s what SFL vice president Kristi Hamrick told a conference audience earlier this year:

“This is not because the environment was my first weapon of choice—it’s because it’s the one we have now…Environmental law has teeth. It already exists. And, frankly, I’m for using the devil’s own tools against them.”

I’ll keep you updated on the Texas bill as I find out more, but please keep an eye out for others like it in your state. They really do think they’re going to be able to pass these without anyone noticing.

In the States

In related news, let’s talk about the Nebraska bill that would require abortion clinics to dispose of fetal remains by “cremation or interment by burial.” LB632 states that burial or cremation is necessary to “protect public health,” and bill sponsor Sen. Ben Hansen claims that “improper disposal” of fetal remains could put “toxic pollutants” in the groundwater.

That’s right—this stupid fucking argument is everywhere!

But here’s what’s really telling: I flagged last month that the bill only requires fetal remains to be buried or cremated if they’re from an “elective abortion.” If this legislation were really about ‘dignity’ for the fetus or the environment—why wouldn’t it apply to all pregnancy losses? Could they be any clearer that this is about punishing ‘bad’ women who seek out abortions?

Sen. Ashlei Spivey of Omaha, who has been leading a filibuster against the legislation, noted the same thing—arguing that if the intent was anything other than increasing abortion stigma, Hansen would have ensured the bill covered all pregnancy tissue.

Nebraska Sen. Megan Hunt also pointed out during the floor debate today that the bill could allow for conservative lawsuits targeting abortion clinics.

I’ll keep you updated on this one as it advances—or hopefully, doesn’t.

In better news, Colorado’s Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill today to ensure emergency abortion remains available regardless of what bullshit the Trump administration tries to pull. SB 130 would protect abortion and miscarriage care in emergency rooms regardless of what happens at the federal level, creating state protections that: require emergency abortion care be provided to all patients; prohibit discrimination in emergency rooms based on a patient’s ability to pay; ensure patients get stabilizing care to preserve not just life but health, and more.

You can always count on Colorado to lead the way on proactive abortion rights issues. Thanks especially, to Cobalt, COLOR (Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights), and the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado for their advocacy on this one.

Finally, a judge ruled last week that Idaho must allow patients to have life-saving abortions, even if the danger to their life isn’t “imminent nor assured.” From the Associated Press:

“Judge Jason Scott issued the ruling broadening the medical exception to the ban, allowing doctors to perform an abortion if ‘good faith medical judgment’ shows a patient with an existing medical condition or pregnancy complication faces a risk of dying at some point without an abortion.”

Essentially, that means you don’t have to be dying right now in Idaho to get an abortion. Thanks, I guess?

I don’t know—I get that this is good news, truly. And I’m so grateful for the plaintiffs who shared their stories. But it’s increasingly difficult for me to muster up optimism for yet another court ruling reminding us that a state had to be forced by a judge not to slowly kill women.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which fought the case, tells the AP that the ruling doesn’t broaden access to women carrying doomed pregnancies, or those who are suicidal. Remember, Idaho is also the state that went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for its right to deny patients life-saving abortions in hospital emergency rooms.

A small media coverage gripe: This Reuters headline that says a judge “relaxed” Idaho’s abortion ban seriously rubbed me the wrong way. While technically correct, can we ease off words like ‘relaxed’ when writing about women going septic, losing organs, and dying?

Quick hits:

• Ms. magazine on how anti-abortion activists stopped a clinic from opening in California;

• Congratulations to Northeastern University students in Massachusetts, who can now get abortion medication from the student health center;

• And in a moment when Texas Republicans are pretending to ‘soften’ their abortion ban, a reminder that women are forced to carry doomed pregnancies to term.

Attacks on Democracy

Let’s catch up on Missouri, where Republicans are trying to overturn the will of voters and trick them into supporting an abortion ban. (I know, just your normal Monday around here!)

It was only this past November that Missouri voters passed Amendment 3, protecting abortion rights until ‘viability’. And they did it despite Republicans’ unprecedented attacks on democracy: lawsuits to keep the measure off the ballot, a biased ballot summary by the Republican Secretary of State, and the Attorney General slow-rolling the signature process by refusing to sign off on a cost estimate. Anti-abortion groups even sent voters text messages claiming pro-choice petitioners were trying to steal their identities.

In other words, anti-abortion activists and lawmakers pulled every dirty trick to stop voters from having a say. Now that Amendment 3 has passed, Republicans want to put abortion back in front of voters again in an attempt to repeal the protection and ban abortion.

At first, conservative lawmakers couldn’t agree on how extreme to go—some wanted a total abortion ban invoking fetal personhood, others pushed for legislation with so-called ‘exceptions.’ But their most recent iteration is especially insidious: an amendment to ban abortion crafted to sound pro-choice.

Seriously, here’s the first sentence of the ballot summary that Missouri voters would see:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Guarantee the right to reproductive freedom, which shall include a woman's right to health care for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and medical emergencies.”

Guarantee the right to reproductive freedom?! If you’re not reading carefully enough, you’d have no idea that Joint Resolution 73 would ban abortion. In fact, the legislation doesn’t even explicitly say when abortion would be banned—just that there would be exceptions for rape and incest victims before 12 weeks of pregnancy who reported their attacks.

We know what’s happening here. Republicans are well-aware that Missouri voters want abortion to be legal, so they’re deliberately trying to be as vague as possible. As Kylie Cheung at Jezebel points out, conservatives are actually reviving a tactic we’re pretty familiar with: claiming their abortion ban isn’t a ban at all. From the Kansas City Star:

“[State Rep. Brian] Seitz repeatedly deflected questions about at what point in a pregnancy his proposed amendment would ban abortion, saying, ‘we’re going to get this before the people.’ Both Seitz and Riley rejected framing the legislation as an ‘abortion ban,’ saying that it would allow for exceptions.”

This is exactly what Abortion, Every Day warned about in the lead-up to November: Republicans quietly redefining what counts as a ‘ban.’ By pretending that only a total prohibition—with no exceptions, not even to save a woman’s life—qualifies, they’ve been able to claim that their 12- and 15-week bans aren’t bans at all, but just ‘reasonable restrictions.’

It’s the rhetorical equivalent of crossing their fingers behind their backs. (Remember when JD Vance claimed he didn’t support a national abortion ban, but a ‘minimum national standard’?)

Now Missouri Republicans are doing the same—claiming that their ban is about “protecting women.” If you want to know what Seitz really thinks of women, consider that he suggested a patient might obtain an abortion while in labor under Amendment 3:

“[She could be] in very much pain, as I’m sure most women are when they’re about to give birth, and declare, ‘I want to have an abortion. I want to have an abortion. I just can’t take it. I cannot go through with it. I cannot have a baby. I cannot financially care for the baby. My boyfriend’s disappeared. I want an abortion.’ I think Amendment 3 opened that door to that possibility at nine months.”

The other important thing to know about House Joint Resolution 73? It would ban gender affirming care for those under 18 years old. Because of course it would.

Republicans want the amendment to go in front of voters in November 2026—or earlier, if there’s a special election. For more info on what’s happening in Missouri—and the broader fight over Amendment 3 and its ‘viability’ restriction—read a bit of background here and check out What’s Next For Missouri.

Hypocrisy Alert

You’re going to love this: A Catholic hospital in Iowa is arguing that damages in a pregnancy loss lawsuit should be capped—because the fetus isn’t a person.

The Iowa Capital Dispatch reports that Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI) is being sued for medical malpractice after discharging a woman with preeclampsia symptoms. Miranda Anderson was 34 weeks pregnant when she went to Pella Regional Health Center, but the hospital sent her home rather than inducing early labor. Anderson’s fetus died several days later, and she had to undergo a c-section to deliver her dead daughter.

CHI argues that Anderson’s fetus shouldn’t be considered a patient when the court calculates damages, and that “there is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law.” What’s more, attorneys say that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.” You don’t say!

Essentially, Catholic hospitals want to claim that fetuses are ‘people’ when patients need health- and life-saving care—but abandon that belief if they might lose money.

A little bit of background you might find interesting, especially in light of the conversations we have here about how conservatives are trying to change the definition of ‘abortion’:

CHI’s hospitals, like other Catholic health systems, adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—which bans abortion in all cases.

The only time doctors at Catholic institutions are allowed to intervene is when a patient’s life is at risk. Even then, they don’t permit ‘abortion’—but “operations, treatments, and medications” to save women’s lives that may indirectly “result in the death of the unborn child.”

This is pretty much the same thing as the anti-abortion obsession with calling for ‘maternal fetal separation,’ or doing away with the word ‘abortion’ when it comes to life-saving care. They’re doing anything they can to divorce abortion from healthcare.

In the Nation

• Margaret Talbot at The New Yorker does a deep dive into fetal personhood and talks to law professor Mary Ziegler about her new book;

• MSNBC and POLITICO on how RFK Jr’s cuts will stop data collection on abortion, cancer, HIV, and more;

• Rewire with “5 Things You Should Know to Safely Access Abortion Care in 2025”;

• And Students for Life is dispatching provocateurs to college campuses, but the students at USC had the best response possible: ignoring them.

AED in Conversation

I’ll be doing a livestream tomorrow at 5:30PM EST with journalist and fellow Substacker Jessica Yellin!

Bookmark this link, or keep an eye on your inbox for the notification when the conversation begins. Remember, livestream conversations are a perk for paid subscribers—so upgrade your subscription now if you want to watch live and join the conversation:

Don’t worry, though: The video of our chat will be available to all subscribers later in the evening! But signing up for a paid subscription is the best way to support the newsletter and to help me host more online events like this one.