Students for Life disputes pro-abortion writer’s criticism of study finding anti-progesterone activity in water

Students for Life of America (SFLA) challenged abortion advocate Jessica Valenti’s criticism of a recent study that reported anti-progesterone activity in environmental and tap water, arguing that she misrepresented the researchers’ testing method and dismissed potential health concerns without sufficient evidence. 

In a July 31 opinion article, SFLA policy analyst Olivia D’Angelo responded to several criticisms Valenti raised about the study, which examined water collected in Austin, Texas; Blacksburg, Virginia; and Carbondale, Illinois.

As Zeale News previously reported, researchers Elise Rose and Michael Varveris collected 36 samples from locations upstream and downstream of wastewater-treatment facilities and from municipal taps. The samples were analyzed with a PR CALUX bioassay, which measures the combined activity of substances that bind to and block progesterone receptors. 

>> Alarming study finds abortion-inducing drug in drinking water of 3 US cities <<

The researchers reported anti-progesterone activity expressed as concentrations equivalent to mifepristone, the first drug in the two-drug chemical abortion regimen. The study called for additional testing to confirm which compounds produced the response and assess whether they pose health or environmental risks. 

Valenti disputed the researchers’ description of the results in a July 27 Substack article, arguing that the bioassay measured anti-progesterone activity rather than chemically confirming the presence of mifepristone itself. 

“They didn’t actually test the water for mifepristone,” Valenti wrote, arguing that other substances capable of blocking progesterone receptors could have produced the response. 

SFLA rejected her characterization, saying the researchers used mifepristone as the reference compound for the assay and designed the study to look for activity consistent with the drug. 

“The study was specifically tuned to show the presence of mifepristone,” D’Angelo wrote. “The study found it, and multiple rounds of peer reviews agreed.”

D’Angelo cited Rose’s explanation that the test operates like a “lock and key” and that another chemical would have to be “identical or nearly identical” to mifepristone to trigger the same response. 

D’Angelo said that even if another compound contributed to the measured activity, it would need to have “the same structure as mifepristone, and therefore the same risks,” a possibility she described as unlikely. 

“Even if another contaminant contributed to the [study’s] light reaction, it wouldn’t change that mifepristone was specifically detected,” she added.

D’Angelo also said more than 50 tons of pollution from the chemical abortion pill enter waterways each year. She argued that volume makes it “obvious” the main contributor to anti-progesterone activity in water is mifepristone.

“The presence of mifepristone is undeniable, and we encourage more studies to prove our findings correct,” she wrote. 

The organization also disputed Valenti’s claim that its environmental campaign is primarily a political strategy intended to restrict abortion. Valenti cited a 2025 remark from SFLA’s vice president of media and policy, who said environmental law was not her “first weapon of choice” in opposing abortion.

D’Angelo said the comment showed only that environmental advocacy was one of several strategies the pro-life movement has pursued over the years. She pointed to citizen petitions, legal briefs concerning endangered species, and a campaign urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to monitor mifepristone under the Safe Drinking Water Act as evidence of the SFLA’s sustained work on the issue.

“SFLA has illustrated that our concerns about Chemical Abortion Pills begin with the babies whose lives are ended,” D’Angelo wrote. “From there, our worries extend to their mothers, too often poisoned with abortion pills by abusers, and continue to the environment. Our advocacy on this issue represents a real investment in protecting all Life from deadly and dangerous Chemical Abortion Pills.”

D’Angelo also rejected Valenti’s argument that the researchers’ and publisher’s pro-life affiliations discredited the study. 

She acknowledged that Issues in Law & Medicine — the journal that published the article — is affiliated with the pro-life Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine but argued that the study should be evaluated according to its methods and the qualifications of its researchers rather than the personal views of its authors or publisher.

Valenti further argued that the reported level of anti-progesterone activity in the water was too low to pose a meaningful risk, saying someone would have to consume nearly 5 million liters of water at the highest reported level to receive the equivalent of one 200-milligram clinical dose of mifepristone.

D’Angelo responded that comparing prolonged environmental exposure with a single clinical dose does not resolve whether lower concentrations could have biological effects over time. 

She compared the study’s highest reported anti-progesterone activity — equivalent to 41 parts per trillion of mifepristone — with the Biden administration’s 2024 maximum containment levels for certain PFAS chemicals in drinking water, which were reportedly set at 4.0 parts per trillion. 

“You don’t have to be pro-life to want clean drinking water,” D’Angelo said. “You don’t have to be pro-life to NOT want to be microdosed with a progesterone blocker without your consent.”

As Zeale News reported in its coverage of the study, research cited by its authors found that women who received low doses of mifepristone over extended periods of time experienced suppressed ovulation, absent menstruation, and changes in the uterine lining. Other research has associated low progesterone levels with lower fertility rates and higher rates of miscarriage and complications during pregnancy.

D’Angelo noted that the World Health Organization estimates 1 in 6 people worldwide experience infertility during their lifetimes and many women take progesterone “to get and stay pregnant.”

“Is it possible that mifepristone in our water is hurting the chances of some people who want a baby?” D’Angelo asked. “We need more testing to find out.”

SFLA called on the EPA and Food and Drug Administration to conduct that research rather than dismiss the findings. 

“The truth about our study is not the real concern of abortion advocates like Valenti. This is just another attempt to distract the public from the underlying moral truth she wants to avoid: abortion is the senseless killing of a preborn child,” D’Angelo concluded. “We all deserve to know the truth about how Chemical Abortion Pills in our water is affecting our health, and our study is a great first step.”