Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes
Every public school restroom in Texas contains toilet paper. No one thinks twice about why it belongs there. Yet when the conversation shifts to menstrual products, suddenly we need legislative debates and fiscal justification.
This year, Texas House Bill 550 (HB 550), which required Texas public school districts to provide free menstrual products in female student restrooms on every campus, failed to advance through the Legislature. As the 17-year-old cofounder of a nonprofit fighting period poverty, I’ve heard stories of students leaving school early or secretly asking friends for menstrual products because of cost barriers. I’ve worked to assemble resource kits to reach young women across the globe. So when I learned about HB 550, I assumed lawmakers did not value the issue. But after interviewing policymakers, public health experts, and menstrual equity organizations, I realized the question is not the importance of period poverty. It is why other legislative reforms seem to constantly take priority.
HB 550 proposed requiring Texas public school districts to provide free menstrual products in each restroom designated for female students on every campus. Although the bill was referred to the House Public Education Committee, it never received a committee hearing or floor vote, leaving product accessibility in restrooms up to individual school districts.
When I began researching this bill, I expected cost to be the primary obstacle behind this stall. Everyone I interviewed challenged that belief.
Anne Weigand from Egal Pads, an innovative menstrual product company dispensing sanitary pads in public restroom stalls, estimated that the annual cost could be approximately $5–7 per student, depending on purchasing volume and implementation. Economists often evaluate public investments by comparing upfront costs with long-term returns. Even a modest reduction in absenteeism or improved classroom engagement could offset the relatively small annual expense, suggesting the more important question is not simply how much menstrual products cost, but what it costs students when they are unavailable. To put that figure into perspective, schools already budget for restroom essentials such as toilet paper for every student each year without questioning whether the expense is justified. If schools routinely fund one hygiene necessity, why are menstrual products, which are used by only a portion of the student population, still viewed as a financial burden? So if the financial investment is relatively modest, why didn’t the legislation move forward? There are many reasons for this.
The first answer is prioritization. Skyler Korgel, Legislative Director for Texas House Representative Lulu Flores (D-Austin), described the Public Education Committee’s agenda as dominated by “higher-profile” education issues that affect all students. He noted that lawmakers were trying to keep the committee agenda short and “didn’t see it [HB 550] as vital to address” during the session. Benjamin Hickman, Legislative Director for Representative John Bucy (D-Austin), a co-author and supporter of HB 550, offered a similar explanation. Speaking from the perspective of a legislative office that backed the bill, Hickman explained that much of the session was consumed by school finance reforms, voucher legislation, and staffing capacity, all of which generated significantly more legislative attention and momentum than HB 550 despite his office’s support for the measure.
Taken together, these insights suggest that legislation advances not just because an issue is important, but because it earns enough popularity and urgency to advance. This high-stakes, sudden death tournament begins with several rookie bills and one committee chair that determines who makes the bracket. This process draws on a basic principle of economics: opportunity cost. Every legislative session has limited time, attention, political capital, and resources. Choosing one policy means postponing another.
The second barrier is competing ideas on public responsibility. As explained by Benjamin Hickman, menstrual products are perceived as an individual’s responsibility rather than a public good, making governments less likely to intervene. This reflects a broader policy debate over which necessities generate enough positive social benefits to justify public investment. Schools already provide items that enable every student to fully participate in the classroom environment. The question is whether menstrual products should be evaluated through that same economic lens. He also noted that the long-term costs of period poverty, including missed classroom instruction, often get benched in policy discussions, illuminating a gap in current legislative discourse.
Multiple experts also highlighted the persistent stigma surrounding menstrual equity legislation, encouraging proponents to reframe the conversation by asking why essential menstrual products are treated differently from other basic necessities. While schools secure ongoing funding to provide toilet paper, soap, water, and paper towels to students without question, menstrual products continue to fall short. This distinction reflects broader assumptions about which health needs are viewed as shared public responsibilities and which remain individualized.
The broader question, then, is not simply whether schools should provide menstrual products, but how policymakers determine which student needs are considered essential public responsibilities.
The third and final barrier I learned about is culture.
Legislative experts, suppliers, and menstrual advocates described the same challenge: a broader culture of discomfort surrounding menstruation that makes conversations about period equity politically difficult. Anne Weigand described period poverty as “the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about, but everyone is thinking about,” limiting awareness and political pressure on legislators. The persistence of that discomfort may help explain why menstrual equity continues to receive less legislative attention than many other school health issues.
Speaking of discussion, Texas did acknowledge menstrual products as necessities back in 2023. Through Senate Bill 379 (SB 379), lawmakers exempted a range of family-care items, including menstrual products, from state sales tax, publicly confirming their status as a hygiene necessity rather than a luxury item. But students still lack guaranteed access during the school day because no statewide requirement exists for schools.
Other states are beginning to move further. Pennsylvania offers an instructive comparison. Rather than requiring schools to provide menstrual products through an unfunded mandate, the state created a grant program that provides districts with funding to supply products, while allowing participation to remain voluntary. Since 2024, Pennsylvania has committed approximately $6 million to the initiative, illustrating a different policy approach that addresses both access and implementation costs. The treatment of menstrual equity as a public health investment may provide one example of how states can approach the issue through different legislative designs.
HB 550’s failure suggests that legislative outcomes are shaped by more than the merits of a single proposal. They reflect competing priorities, differing views of government’s role, fiscal design, and broader cultural attitudes. Understanding why a bill stalls is often as valuable as understanding what it sought to accomplish, because those underlying dynamics ultimately determine which public needs become legislative priorities, and which remain unresolved.
Support Our Work
Texas Policy Research relies on generous donors across Texas. If you found this helpful, please consider supporting our efforts.
Donate TodayStay in the Loop
Subscribe for occasional emails with new research, event details, and ways to engage with Texas policy.
Subscribe for Updates
