By: Ashlyn Saltzburg
Edited By: Rose Kores
Introduction
When a high-school student in Texas skips class because she cannot afford a box of tampons, she is not merely missing school; she is paying a price for menstruating. Across the United States, twenty states still impose a sales tax on menstrual products, generating nearly $100 million each year from what many call a period penalty. Meanwhile, ice cream, erectile-dysfunction medication, and potato chips are often tax-exempt. The message is clear: women’s health is an option; men’s comfort is not.
This inequity, known as the tampon tax, reveals how American fiscal policy undervalues menstrual health. By classifying tampons and pads as “non-essential” instead of medically necessary items, states uphold a regressive tax that disproportionately harms low-income menstruators. Period poverty is classified as the inability to afford menstrual products and affects roughly 14 percent of menstruators nationwide.1 This leads to absenteeism, lost wages, and infection risks when women reuse products. Consequently, menstruation is not optional. Taxing it is.
Background
The tampon tax traces back to the 1930s, when menstrual products entered consumer markets but were not recognized as medical necessities.2 This oversight persisted for decades, reflecting both male-dominated legislatures and the broader absence of menstrual health from public policy discourse.
The modern push to repeal the tax began in the 2010s, when advocates reframed it as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In New York, a 2016 class action lawsuit argued that taxing menstrual products constituted gender discrimination. Bipartisan support for the lawsuit quickly emerged, leading to the tax’s repeal. Illinois repealed its tax in 2017, citing it as an issue of fairness and public health necessity, while California suspended and later abolished the tax by 2021.2
Despite these victories, twenty states, mostly in the South and Midwest, still tax menstrual products.3 States with higher numbers of female legislators are statistically more likely to have repealed the tax, undermining the link between representation and reform.
Internationally, the United States lags far behind. France, Kenya, Canada, Colombia, Austria, South Africa, and Malaysia have all abolished or reduced menstrual-product taxes, while Ireland provides free products in public spaces.4 These global precedents demonstrate that menstrual equity is both feasible and fiscally insignificant.
Opposition to Repeal
Opponents often justify maintaining the tampon tax on fiscal or administrative grounds. They argue that removing it would reduce state revenue or complicate tax frameworks. Yet, repealing the tax would decrease annual state budgets by less than one percent, an amount too small to affect fiscal stability.5
Others contend that menstrual products are merely “hygiene goods” like shampoo or deodorant, an inaccurate label that lets states justify taxing everyday toiletries as nonessential. This misclassification ignores their medical necessity. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists confirms that menstrual products are essential healthcare supplies preventing infection and preserving dignity.1 Opposition therefore reflects cultural discomfort, not budgetary prudence.
Finally, some policymakers understand period poverty to be a niche issue. In reality, it affects millions of women and young girls by impacting school attendance, workplace productivity, and overall public health. When people see how these inequities affect daily life, they are far more likely to stand behind repeal efforts.
Arguments
Argument One: Taxation as Gender Discrimination
Taxing menstrual products places a financial burden on menstruators, effectively creating a gender-based cost of living. Legal scholars argue that the tampon tax violates the Equal Protection Clause by imposing unequal treatment under the law.2 The lack of menstruators in policymaking has enabled this inequity to persist, allowing outdated tax codes and gender-blind budgeting practices to overlook the real health and economic consequences for those who menstruate.
Beyond legality, the social impact is profound. Fourteen percent of menstruators experience period poverty annually, and one in five students reports struggling to afford menstrual hygiene products.6 These numbers translate into lost classroom time, economic setbacks, and social stigma. When essential items for men, like Viagra, are tax-exempt while pads and tampons are not, the gender bias in fiscal policy becomes undeniable.
International comparisons reinforce the moral argument: when nations like Kenya and Ireland abolished the tax, school attendance among menstruating students increased and hygiene outcomes improved markedly, proving that tax reform yields tangible equity gains. These examples show that menstrual equity policies do more than remove a financial burden; they expand access to education, reduce stigma, and strengthen public-health outcomes across communities.
Argument Two: Legislative Process and Limitations
Current legislation attempts to address both taxation and access. The STAMP ACT (H.R. 7905) seeks a federal repeal by reclassifying menstrual products as medically necessary.7 Although this would standardize treatment nationwide, it faces resistance from states defending tax sovereignty.
The Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2023 (H.R. 3646) broadens the focus, mandating free menstrual products in schools, prisons, and shelters while requiring Medicaid coverage.8 However, without dedicated funding and enforcement, compliance varies widely.
The Period PROUD Act (H.R. 922) provides block-grant funding to low-income and rural areas, recognizing that period poverty intersects with race and class.9 Yet state participation remains voluntary, limiting the legislation’s reach. The Good Samaritan Menstrual Products Act (H.R. 10230) grants liability protection to donors, encouraging philanthropy but failing to guarantee universal access.9
Together, these bills demonstrate bipartisan momentum but fragmented implementation. Each addresses a facet of menstrual equity such as taxation, accessibility, and safety, but only a coordinated federal-state strategy can close remaining gaps.
Argument Three: Grassroots Action and Legislative Impact
Change often begins outside the halls of the legislature. In California, student advocates successfully lobbied for AB 367, requiring free menstrual products in public schools and colleges. In Texas, grassroots organizers used refund activation claims demanding reimbursements for tampon taxes to pressure state officials to submit a repeal by 2023.6
Advocate Laura Strausfeld, founder of Period Law, explains that “lawmakers respond most strongly when they hear the human stories. People who bled through their clothes because they couldn’t afford a pad or tampon.”2 These narratives bridge the gap between data and moral urgency, making the case for reform both quantifiable and deeply human.
Grassroots campaigns, student testimonies, and social media movements have reframed menstruation as a public health issue rather than a private inconvenience. However, these efforts can only achieve so much; it is now up to lawmakers to take the final step and abolish the tampon tax.
Recommendation
To ensure menstrual equity, policymakers must integrate repeal, access, and accountability into one national framework:
- Federal Repeal and Reclassification: Enact the STAMP Act to remove the tampon tax nationwide and recognize menstrual products as medically necessary goods.7
- Expanded Access Programs: Strengthen funding under the Menstrual Equity for All and Period PROUD Acts to provide free or low-cost products in schools, shelters, and workplaces.8 9
- Transparency and Accountability: Require annual state reports on menstrual product access, tax exemptions, and product distribution metrics.3
- Public Education and Campaigns: Integrate menstrual-health education into K–12 health classes, college orientation programs, and community workshops. Reinforce it with statewide public-health campaigns through social media, clinic partnerships, and community outreach to normalize conversation and reduce stigma.
Eliminating the tampon tax is both economically feasible and morally imperative. As Ireland’s Minister for Health stated when launching free-product-programs, “Menstrual health is not a luxury; it is a human right.”4 The United States should follow Ireland’s lead and recognize the tampon tax for what it is: a violation of human dignity.
Works Cited
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2023. Access to Menstrual Products as a Public Health Issue. ACOG Policy Statement. https://www.acog.org/clinical-information/policy-and-position-statements/statements-of-policy.
- Strausfeld, Laura. 2024. “Bleeding Through: Legal and Social Strategies for Menstrual Equity”. Period Law. https://www.periodlaw.org/period-law-strategy-fund/.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2023. “Emergency Department Visits”. CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm.
- Ireland Department of Health. 2025. Period Poverty. Government of Ireland. https://www.gov.ie/en/healthy-ireland/publications/period-poverty/.
- U.S. Congress, 118th. STAMP Act of 2024 (H.R. 7905). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7905.
- U.S. Congress, 118th. Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2023 (H.R. 3646). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3646.
- U.S. Congress, 119th. Period PROUD Act (H.R. 922). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/922.
- U.S. Congress, 118th. Good Samaritan Menstrual Products Act (H.R. 10230). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/10230.
- Strausfeld, Laura. 2024. “Bleeding Through: Legal and Social Strategies for Menstrual Equity”. Period Law. https://www.periodlaw.org/period-law-strategy-fund/.
Author Bio 
Ashlyn Saltzburg is a first-year undergraduate student at Cornell University’s Brooks School of Public Policy, where she studies Health Care Policy. She resides in Los Angeles, California, and is interested in how identity politics shape health outcomes and influence the design and delivery of healthcare systems. Her interest in public health stems from her personal experience of being diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) at age eight. Living with a chronic illness has shaped her commitment to driving meaningful, patient-centered change in the healthcare system. In 2022, Ashlyn successfully advocated for and helped pass California Assembly Bill 1632, the Restroom Access Act, legislation that improves restroom access for individuals with IBD and similar medical conditions. This experience reinforced her belief in public policy as a powerful tool for advancing health equity.
