Open Letter Regarding the Taxation of Feminine Products

Today I write to you in regards to a recent occurrence within a state government. Governor Jerry Brown in California recently vetoed a bill on September 14th, called AB1561 that would have made tampon sales exempt from taxation. His reasoning is that by removing the tax his state would suffer a $300M loss each year from uncollected sales numbers. While this is sound in practice, I would like to illustrate how that means it costs tampon users in his state $300M extra dollars to combat a naturally occurring bodily process that affects a majority of the population within his state, yet an incredible minority in official representation.

This sparked my curiosity and as such, I began to look into our Nebraska sales tax code. So far the only relatable entry that I have been able to locate in regards to the taxation of feminine hygiene products is REG-1–050.07C. This states the following:

“Home medical supplies shall mean supplies primarily and customarily used to serve a medical purpose that are appropriate for use in the home and are not generally useful to a person in the absence of illness or injury. Home medical supplies do not include items for personal comfort, hygiene or cosmetic purposes, or any drugs.”

This is where things became interesting to me. The line states “not generally useful to a person in the absence of illness or injury,” and I have to ask, what does that mean? If I went to the pharmacy today and asked for an ACE bandage without noticeable injury, shouldn’t I be charged sales tax? What if I had sprained my wrist that day and it was very evident that it was an issue? Does the bandage lose its usefulness if not immediately required by its buyer?

If we understand that I can buy a box of bandaids for future application to prevent blood loss, without needing them immediately, is it honestly such a stretch to understand that tampons are exactly the same things?

On that note, let’s break down the needs and usefulness of tampons and their kin.

Under this code we know the following:

Home supplies must:

1.) Serve a medical purpose.

2.) Be appropriate for home use.

3.) Not generally useful without being currently ill or injured.

4.) Cannot be an item for comfort, hygiene, or cosmetic needs.

Let’s start with tampons, the more common of feminine product.Tampon as defined by Merriam-Webster: “a wad of absorbent material (as of cotton) introduced into a body cavity or canal usually to absorb secretions (as from menstruation) or to arrest hemorrhaging” [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tampon accessed 09/14/2016] This is also the accepted medical definition as well, using this we can use the definition of a medical supply as produced by the sales tax code to determine if it qualifies for exemption.

Tampons:

1.) Serve a medical purpose.

2.) Are appropriate for home use.

3.) Not useful without “injury”.

4.) No noted hygiene benefits based on accepted definition.

With this in mind, I motion that Nebraska should remove its non-exempt status on tampons and subsequently other feminine needs and join one of the three states already supporting feminine product users by doing the same. Punishing the users of these products though added expense does nothing but increase the shame felt by those who require these goods.

A paper titled “A Bloody Business: How the Feminine Hygiene Industry Sells Taboos” by Suraya Karzai in The York Scholar [v. 7.1 Fall 2010, emphasis is my own] sums this idea up quite well with the following:

“One might argue the feminine hygiene industry is benefiting women by manufacturing products that keep menstruation secret. Although it is true that the products manufactured by this industry do serve to keep menstruation hidden, the products actually do more harm than good for women. By portraying menstruation as an event that should be kept a secret at all times, the hygiene industry is actually encouraging negative bias, stereotypes, and assumptions about menstruating women.”

By our own admission, we are admitting to women in our state that their biology is not case enough to remove a sales tax exploiting a situation they cannot control. If instead, these additional costs posed by users of these products through taxation were to encourage the use of safer, cleaner and overall better alternatives, then we would have a different conversation to be had.

As it stands, taxing menstruation needs through sales taxes and other common forms of taxation is nothing more than punishing those citizens who must face the daily struggle of taboo forced upon them since birth. This form of discrimination that should not be taken lightly, but instead abolished.

Within this same topic, I implore you to consider expanding funding on important and life-saving instruction regarding sexual health and activity within our society. Many of these issues surrounding citizens and their confusions could be remedied if only we would accept that human bodies are strange and unique.

As Mark A. Guterman of Fairleigh Dickinson University stated, “Only through true understanding can we properly modify our approaches and remove obsolete superstitions from everyday life.” [Menstrual Taboos Among Major Religions, M Guterman, P Mehta, M Gibbs 2008]

Sincerely yours,

Chet M. Coenen