To no one’s surprise, Republican legislators have found yet another way to target young women: menstrual products.
Caroline Dillon, a senior at Spaulding High School in Rochester, N.H., approached then state Sen. Martha Hennessey (D-5) with a mock-up of a bill that would mandate New Hampshire middle and high schools to provide menstrual products for student use back in 2019.
These products would be free-of-charge to menstruating students, with the individual schools bearing the cost. The bill was signed into law on July 17, 2019 by former Republican New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, with hopes to bridge “period poverty”— a phenomena brought about by the inaccessibility of period products due to factors including their high cost and continuing stigmas.
The bill was controversial in 2019 when it was first introduced due to concerns over the potential tax burdens that an unfunded mandate would create.
In 2025, legislators have finally acted to revoke the mandate. HB 415, sponsored by N.H. state Rep. Katy Peternel (R-6), would remove the requirement, allowing individual school districts to decide whether or not they will continue to fund the provision of menstrual products.
These legislators are asking the wrong questions. Instead of eliminating the mandate because schools cannot afford to fund these products, why don’t we focus on ways that we can fund them? In a time where one-in-three teens lack access to basic tampons or pads during their period, the solution will never lie in further restricting access. Revoking this mandate sets a precedent that menstruation is excluded from the larger social prioritization of sanitation.
Period poverty is not only enhanced by the high costs of menstrual products, it also includes a lack of infrastructure and sanitation that causes interruptions in students’ education when basic cleanliness and product disposal must be prioritized over attendance in class. When schools stop funding period products, there will be students left without access to period products, both in schools and at home.
Moreover, funding menstrual products speaks to a larger culture. Any young menstruating student can likely relate to an uncomfortable experience balancing academic commitments with active symptoms, which can cause nausea, cramping, fatigue, mood swings, difficulty concentrating and more.
Funding period products, just as we fund toilet paper, bandages and other means of proper sanitation, is a recognition of a basic human function that requires proper addressing. Funding period products in schools is a measure to address economic inequality and a recognition that not all students return home to the same households where period products are regularly purchased or recognized as necessities.
This bill contributes to a larger sentiment that the government should cut taxes and spending as much as possible. Beyond my view that we need to fund menstrual products in schools, it is also my view that we need to leave behind whatever generalization that our government should function as a Fortune 500 company.
Any young menstruating student can likely relate to an uncomfortable experience balancing academic commitments with active symptoms, which can cause nausea, cramping, fatigue, mood swings, difficulty concentrating and more.
The Founding Fathers did not gather round at sweaty conventions to develop the next largest corporation. Governments provide services and address inequalities, including period inequality. Something as basic as a tampon should not cause uproar to legislators in charge of representing the needs of young students.
As a taxpayer, if I had to pinpoint any tax burden, it would not be directed at the young students menstruating in schools, but rather the billions per year spent dumped into national security.
sglisson@ramapo.edu
Featured photo courtesy of fosters.com
