ABORTED BABIES IN YOUR WATER: BAN THE PILL

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

Why didn't we think of it before now? Did we not wonder what happens to the thousands upon thousands of tiny pre-born babies flushed down the loo by women who self-medicate with the lethal medical abortion pill, mifepristone? Obviously, the dead babies - nearly 700,000 a year in the US - and placenta, blood and chemical byproducts go into our public water systems. The dead babies are up to two inches long, clogging pipes and traumatizing wastewater workers who find them trapped in treatment screens. 

As if the slaughter of our unborn children (wholesale in New Zealand now, per kind favour of Dame Jacinda Ardern's Abortion Law Act, rushed through Parliament under cover of the COVID hoax) were not evil enough in itself. The callousness of flushing them down the loo is equalled only by the stupidity of ingesting poisonous chemicals and human remains. Some would call that karma. It's actually divine vengeance. Mankind must suffer for it. 

Mass slaughter of the innocents is the apogee of the Davos Depopulation/White Replacement agenda. It started with feminism, progressed to LGBTQ and pornography, climaxed with abortion, then imported aliens (in New Zealand, Indians, Philippinos and Chinese) to replace the missing homegrown, white citizenry. Anything but white: it's How to End Whiteness 101. 

Or How To End Western civilisation. By flushing our babies down the loo.

 

The abortion pill, mifepristone, is potentially contaminating America’s tap water, the Daily Citizen recently reported. Now, recent data adds a disturbing new layer to this alarming issue.

 

A 2025 report from Liberty Counsel Action (LCA) estimates between 30 and 40 tons of aborted fetal remains – including human tissue, placenta, blood and chemical byproducts – are flushed into America’s wastewater each year.

For reference, this is equivalent to the weight of a fully loaded semi-truck.

In a Vigilant Fox broadcast, Abigail Forman, one of the report’s authors, commented:

Nearly 700,000 times a year in the US, women take abortion pills, flushing the resulting remains down toilets and into our public water systems.

Aborted fetuses, some up to two inches long, are being flushed down toilets, clogging pipes and traumatizing wastewater workers who find them trapped in treatment screens.

Employees of wastewater facilities should not be encountering such graphic remains, nor are these treatment centers equipped process human blood and tissues correctly. The LCA report notes:

Abortion providers issuing chemical abortion pills have been able to use wastewater treatment plants as their de facto medical waste facilities for decades.

While a few states separately impose burial or cremation requirements for aborted children, “most states do not specifically regulate” aborted fetal remains disposal.

Due to treatment centers’ inability to properly sanitize water contaminated by this hazardous waste, Forman added that dangerous byproducts from both aborted babies and the mifepristone drug are likely present in all forms of our tap water.

Americans across the country are using this harmful water, polluted by death and chemicals, for bathing, drinking, cooking and cleaning on a daily basis.

 

A human life lost and found in waste water

 

This issue not only jeopardizes the American people’s health and correlates with rising infertility rates, but the flushing of fetal remains into our sewer system is utterly disrespectful towards the countless babies who have been denied their right to life. The LCA report states,

Liberty Counsel Action agrees that not only is further study needed, so also is dignified disposition of human remains.

Addressing this issue should unite all Americans.

Clean drinking water and human dignity should not be controversial.

Thankfully, several have stepped up to investigate this problem. As previously reported, Senator James Lankford and Congressman Josh Brecheen have urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate “the potential contaminant effects” of mifepristone in America’s tap water. 

More recently, however, Representative Brandon Gill and Senator Jim Banks have introduced “The Respectful Treatment of Unborn Remains Act.” According to a June 25 press release, the act would aim to:

Bar abortionists from disposing of aborted fetal remains in publicly owned water systems, including but not limited to federal, state, and locally controlled drains and pipes.

This legislation would restore dignity to the deceased unborn child and prevent health risks posed by medical waste contamination in public water reserves.

If passed, abortion providers found violating the law would face a fine and up to five years in prison. Notably, these penalties would not apply to the woman receiving the abortion.

Concerning the act, Congressman Gill commented to the Daily Wire,

Not only does abortion rob an unborn baby of their life, but abortionists further rob them of a dignified burial by carelessly discarding their fetal remains into public water systems — a disgusting and abhorrent practice.

This careless discard of human body parts signifies the depraved disregard for the sanctity of life at abortion clinics.

Beyond the moral outrage, introducing fetal remains into public water systems also poses a serious public health concern, potentially contaminating water sources.

I am proud to introduce a bill that restores some dignity after death, as part of the greater fight to protect all life from the evil of abortion.

While the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency - ed) has not commented on this issue, the new bill has received support from several pro-life groups, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Priests for Life and Students for Life Action. Additionally, several House Representatives have co-sponsored the bill.

As the LCA stated in their report, the issue of water sanitation and the dignity of human life should not be controversial.

The American people deserve better than contaminated tap water.

Women deserve better than the abortion pill.

And preborn babies robbed of their right to life deserve better than being flushed down the toilet. 

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1944154768785490074/photo/1

 

BREAKING NEWS: New White Paper: Abortion Pill Chemicals and Human Remains Entering the Water Supply

June 17, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A research paper released this week is raising an urgent national alarm over the environmental consequences of chemical abortions. The special report, published by Liberty Counsel Action, documents how an estimated 30-40 tons of hazardous medical waste, including human remains, are being flushed into the water systems.

The white paper, entitled “Abortion in Our Water, A Special Report: Chemical Home Abortions & the Disposition of Aborted Fetal Remains,” provides a comprehensive analysis regarding the environmental impact of the abortion pill (Mifepristone) and human fetal remains entering our water systems.

 

Drawing from various studies and peer-reviewed research, petitions to the EPA, government documents, interviews with water treatment experts, and proprietary modeling, the report estimates that approximately 700,000 chemical abortions occur per year.

Executive Summary: ABORTION IN OUR WATER President Trump’s Priority:

 

“Crystal Clean Water” “Crystal-clean water” has been a priority of President Donald J. Trump since day one of his first administration.

 

If We Should Not Be Flushing Baby Wipes—We Should Not Be Flushing Babies

 

In direct opposition to Trump’s stated clean water goal, our water is now being contaminated daily by chemical abortions as approximately 700,000 American women are instructed by abortion providers to dispose of their fetal remains down the toilet. 

 

Not only does such instruction fly in the face of the Environmental Protection Agency’s encouragement to only flush toilet paper, as flushing anything else (baby wipes, tampons, goldfish etc.) “. . . can damage internal plumbing, local sewer systems and septic systems,” it also violates various state medical waste laws.

 

Notably, a former EPA state spokesperson stated, “it is never acceptable to put placenta into the sewer system. Never.”

 

The FDA's Original Approval of the Abortion Pill Was Flawed In the application seeking approval for the abortion pill (mifepristone), the Population Council submitted an Environmental Assessment (EA) that concluded the impact of the drug on our environment would be minimal.

 

No actual study of the possible environmental effects was conducted. The same assessment entirely overlooked the issue of how the fetal remains would be disposed of and failed to consider relevant state laws on water quality (as well as the enormous increase in use of the drug).

 

These gross oversights amount to clear violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)and Clean Water Act (CWA).

 

Increased Use of the Pill Increases Environmental Concern

 

The vast majority of the approximately one million annual abortions that occur in the U.S. (at least 63% as of 2023) are now performed outside of a clinical setting. Students for Life of America estimates that 40+ tons of chemically both cases, without the initial ("generating") action of the abortion provider, either to use surgical instruments or to issue the chemical abortion pill, no medical waste would be generated.

 

 

Bubonic plague (black death) started by poisoning well waters with dead remains. Statues like this were erected in Switzerland and England

Argument: Pharmaceuticals have been studied and shown to be in our water, but in such low concentrations they won’t affect human health.

 

• Rebuttal: Their possible effects over time have not been comprehensively studied, nor has the complex interaction of multiple pharmaceuticals and other contaminants been comprehensively studied for all possible combined effects (particularly in children).

 

Argument: Many pharmaceuticals will be removed in conventional wastewater and drinking water treatment.

 

• Rebuttal: Many is not all. And we know other pharmaceuticals and potential endocrine-disrupting compounds, e.g. PFAS, even in very low doses, can be detrimental over time.

 

Argument: Advanced and/or post-treatment processes at wastewater treatmment facilities can remove pharmaceuticals.

 

• Rebuttal: Most POTWs are conventional, not advanced. Furthermore: While there are advanced treatment systems that can remove up to 100 percent of certain pharmaceuticals, they face numerous limitations—for example, some have higher operational costs, and, depending on the type of advanced treatment, can lead to “the formation of toxic by-products during the oxidation of pharmaceuticals,” which raises “significant environmental safety concerns about water treatment technologies,” among others. 

 

The costs of implementing and operating the more effective systems would likely be beyond what rural communities, particularly, could afford.  Even if this is pursued, it would take decades to fully implement across the United States.

 

The U.S. government should not be risking Americans' health by continuing to allow possible exposure to mifepristone metabolites while WWTP processes are updated.  Such efforts still would not get rid of the disturbing reality that human remains (medical waste) are being processed at WWTP, which do not remove all organic waste but allow approximately 10% to enter the water supply (meaning it is highly likely human remains are entering the water supply at a molecular level).

 

Argument: Chemical abortion has been effective for decades, and this is simply a means to control women's bodies.

 

• Rebuttal: This is not about a woman's ability to choose. Indeed, she could still choose a surgical abortion (which is not only safer but likely reduces the trauma women face as they are unlikely to see the human remains from the abortion). Furthermore, there remains the primary matter of the FDA’s and EPA’s negligence in failing to ensure the approval of mifepristone complied with state and local laws on water quality and medical waste (clear violations of the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act).

 

This needs to be properly addressed both to ensure it does not happen again, as well as to ensure any possible adverse effects caused by said negligent actions are properly addressed. For more information, visit: AbortionInOurWater.org 

 

Madonna and Child with an Angel (Sandro Botticelli)




O Sorrowful Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

JUDGING +LEO BY HIS ACTS: HE'S FRANCIS II

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Protestants are cautioned: anti-Catholic rants are not posted on this page.  

 

 

Sr Nathalie Becquart, first woman to vote in a synod of bishops in the first selfie of his pontificate, with "our new Synodal Pope Leo" 

For Catholics the world over the penny's taking a while to drop. Here's Pope Leo XIV white-anting his own papal office and swapping the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for a pseudo democracy, and they're like kids pulling the blanket over their heads so they can't see the wicked ogre they suspect is lurking in their bedroom.

But Deo gratias, there's Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, excommunicated by Jorge Bergoglio (who had no power to do any such thing) and since then in hiding for speaking the truth, interviewed by Stephen Kokx who was sacked from Lifesitenews for doing pretty much the same thing. From the first, +Vigano's faith and formidable intellect saw right through the Bergoglian Novus Ordo Synodal sect's machinations and his courage exposed them.

He denounced the globalists of Davos and Agenda 2030 and now denounces the post-Bergoglian sect for its attempt to disguise elitist tyranny as Synodalisation. And just in passing (cough cough) there's the Covid hoax and its promotion by the so-called 'Pope Francis'  as "an act of love" - with the avid assistance of one Bishop Robert Prevost, in Peru. 

 

 

Stephen Kokx Interviews Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

 

Stephen Kokx: Your Excellency, many of Prevost’s decisions indicate that he wishes to continue along the heretical course of his predecessors, particularly the synodal path charted by Jorge Bergoglio. Many seem to believe we need to “give him time” and “hold out hope” that things will improve.

 

At the same time, it seems Prevost’s agenda is quite clear and that silence or “giving him the benefit of the doubt” – while also putting a more positive spin on his reign – could cause scandal by omission and/or by creating false hope. What do you make of these arguments and how should Catholics be viewing this “pontificate” a little over two months in?

+Carlo Maria Viganò: None of us can judge the internal forum, that is, the interior dispositions with which a person acts or speaks: only Our Lord, who sees into the depths of our hearts, can do that.

But this does not mean that we cannot express an assessment on the external forum, that is, on the effects and consequences that a person’s actions or statements can have in general or in a specific context. This also applies to Leo, whose election is seen by many as a sign of change from the disastrous period of Bergoglian usurpation, even though there is no evidence to suggest this.

 

Indeed, Leo’s governance actions, appointments, and public statements are multiplying, demonstrating his complete alignment with his predecessor of ill-fated memory.

I myself, as I think many noted in the days immediately following the election, preferred to refrain from publicly expressing my views on Leo with comments that might have seemed hasty.

 

After just over two months, however, I believe it is possible to find consistency in Leo’s actions and statements with the line drawn by Bergoglio. And perhaps that impromptu appearance of Sister Nathalie Becquart ¹ and other members of the Synod elite for a selfie with the newly elected pope ² today acquires a significance that may have initially escaped most.

 

 

Sr Becquart XMCJ voting in the Synod (meaning it's not a Synod, which is a gathering of bishops)

 

The message we can glean from this – and which is accompanied by the blissful and satisfied smiles of many ultra-progressive Electors (among them Cardinal Cupich of Chicago) who appeared on the Loggia after the white smoke – is that the synodal path from which the Bergoglian and post-Bergoglian Church can in no way escape has already been mapped out, and that Leo was elected on the fourth ballot as the continuator of the synodal mandate, and not of the munus petrinum.

 

I’ll say it without mincing words: the synodal lobby expects Leo to lend canonical legitimacy to a subversive process of disposing of the Papacy; a sort of voluntary abdication of the Monarch in favor of a Parliament that, in response to the surrender of the power of jurisdiction and governance, recognizes him as having an honorary primacy that can be useful at the ecumenical level.

 

In a legal paradox, this lobby demands that the holder of a divine right exercise supreme authority in order to transmit that right to the synod, something the Pope cannot do. This ecclesial coup is intended to carry out to its extreme consequences the revolutionary process inaugurated at Vatican II with the episcopal collegiality of Lumen Gentium,³ extending the governance of the Catholic Church to the laity and to women, to the complete detriment of the indissoluble bond between the power of Holy Orders and the power of Jurisdiction that has existed in the Church since time immemorial.

 

On the other hand, the extension to women of functions previously reserved for clerics opens up a practical opportunity for the introduction of para-ministerial roles such as deaconesses and non-ordained ministers. It is impossible not to see also in this the fulfillment of what the Agenda 2030 requests for Gender Equality.

 

 I do not know if my brother Bishops and the faithful realize the mortal threat this subversive and fraudulent action represents for the Catholic Church. What the Revolution did in Catholic nations is being accomplished here at the ecclesial level: abolishing the divine right monarchy and replacing it with the fraud of popular sovereignty, while in reality the aim is to shift power into the hands of an elite and transform it into a tyranny. 

 

Synodalization in this sense, or rather the pseudo-democratization of the Church, will constitute the instrument and cause of her destruction, exactly as has already occurred in the civil sphere. This aversion to the sacred Kingship of the Papacy manifests all of Satan’s hatred: for in Catholic Monarchs as well as in the Roman Pontiff there shines forth the Sacred Majesty of Christ the King and Pontiff, who reigns from the Throne of the Cross.

 

This democratization – in name only, because in reality power rests with the lobby – necessarily entails a bureaucratization of the Church, and we know that bureaucracy is one of Freemasonry’s main tools of control.

 

Bureaucrats, behind the pretext of “democratic” and “synodal” procedures, can manipulate assemblies, steer votes, shape consensus, and make it appear that a proposal arises spontaneously from the grassroots, while in fact it has been carefully crafted by those who manage the entire organizational apparatus of the Synod.

 

It is a colossal fiction, a deception that grotesquely replicates the disintegration of civil society after 1789. A fraud that will also lead to the Terror, the dictatorship of a faceless and nameless body, which will promulgate climate dogmas and new sins against the environment, excommunications for harming migrants or for denying the dogma of LGBTQ+ inclusion, and will do so in the name of the synodal Church.

 

In this case, however, there is no King Louis to guillotine: the monarch has already bowed to the globalist idols and his surrender appears convinced and desired, almost planned ahead of time.

 

 

Choose your side

To those who persist in idealizing Leo’s image according to a model that is certainly comforting but does not correspond to reality, I advise them to evaluate the facts for what they are, and not try to adapt them to their own desires. I begin with an indisputable fact: that Robert Francis Prevost was appointed Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and created Cardinal in 2023 by Bergoglio himself.

 

And if Bergoglio had even the vaguest suspicion that Prevost would not be consistent with his governing line, he would never have elevated him to the cardinalate, nor would he have placed him at the head of a strategic Dicastery like the one that decides on the appointments of Bishops.

 

I fear that Leo represents “Modernism with a human face” – to borrow the expression “Socialism with a human face” associated with the Prague Spring of 1968 – and that his undeniably persuasive and affable manner may mislead many, especially “conservative Catholics,” leading them to create a virtual image of the Pope that, however, does not seem to be borne out by reality.

 

The time between the Nuntio vobis and the promulgation of the “green” Missa votiva has seen a series of pronouncements on various topics come to light, all of which show us a Leo who is fully committed to conciliar and synodal ecclesiology, with the sole difference from his predecessor being his more polite demeanor.

 

Let us not forget that during the psycho-pandemic, Bishop Prevost did not hesitate to support the pro-vaccine narrative, recommending the use of masks, social distancing, and compliance with the WHO’s useless and harmful health regulations.

 

His recent calls for a “green conversion” employ theological terminology that transforms an antiscientific psycho-environmentalist theory, steeped in neo-Malthusianism and Gnosticism, into a far more presentable Religion of Nature, to which he bows as the head of the Church of Rome, a key testimonial of globalism.

 

But if the architects of the Agenda 2030 are avowedly enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church; if their false emergencies serve to legitimize false solutions that involve the extermination of part of humanity and the enslavement of the survivors, how on earth, I wonder, can a Pope not realize the enormous moral responsibility he assumes in ratifying the coup d’état of the New World Order?

 

How will the tribunal of History – and the infallible tribunal of Christ the King and Pontiff – judge this betrayal of the munus petrinum?

 

Leo finds himself at a crossroads: either choose the broad and comfortable path of the consensus of the world and of Christ’s enemies and lose his soul along with the Flock entrusted to him by the Lord; or choose the narrow and steep path of following Christ (sequela Christi) and returning to Tradition, in bearing heroic witness of Christ, and Christ Crucified (1 Cor 2:2).

 

The time has come to close once and for all the “conciliar experience,” with its terrible failures and devastation on all fronts. To persist on this path of self-destruction and suicidal perdition would mean making oneself responsible for a foretold ruin, encouraging it rather than denouncing it and fighting it by every means. Let us confidently remember Our Lord’s words to Peter: "I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers"(Lk 22:32).

 

16 July 2025

 

Beatæ Mariæ Virginis de Monte Carmelo

 

1. Undersecretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod.

2. https://zenit.org/2025/05/08/which-is-the-first-document-signed-by-leo-xiv-here-is-the-video-and-first-selfie-with-women/

3. The Synod “constitutes a further act of reception of the Council, prolongs its inspiration and relaunches its prophetic power for today’s world” (Final Document, n. 5). See in this regard the Pathways for the Implementation Phase of the Synod published by the General Secretariat of the Synod on 7 July 2025 (here) EXCLUSIVE interview with Archbishop Viganò, Part 1: Le

1. 

   Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò