By Matteson Epstein
As I arrived at a DeSantis rally, I was enveloped in a swarm of trucker hats, farmers’ tans, and t-shirts in -20°F weather. This was Ankeny, Iowa, a central location for GOP campaign events before the Iowa Caucuses and the antithesis of life at home on the West Coast. Being a 17-year-old liberal from Southern California, I had concerns that caucus-goers would be closed-minded and callous. Despite my fear of divisiveness, I surprisingly uncovered bipartisan support for a female healthcare policy: the revocation of the “tampon tax.”
The rally began with Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds endorsing Florida Governor DeSantis’ candidacy and subsequently outlining her successes in office. She detailed her work on the economy and noted, “We’re cutting taxes too,” followed by an uproar of enthusiastic hooting and hollering.
Although conservatives often view taxes as unnecessary, support for tax reductions in Iowa transcends partisan lines. Three former Iowa Democrats — all of whom changed their voter registration status to vote against Trump at the GOP caucuses — expressed this Republican fiscal posture and “liked the fact that less and less is being taxed.”
Since Democrats and Republicans in Iowa champion certain tax exemptions, an arbitrary list of items — ice cream, take-and-bake pizza, livestock ear tags, etc. — have become free from sales tax because state law classifies them as “necessities.” However, it was not until 2023 that Iowa revoked its sales tax on tampons and pads, which the state tax code formerly considered “luxury” goods.
The sales tax on menstrual products, dubbed the “tampon tax,” exists in 21 states across the country, which collect, in the aggregate, more than $150 million in tax revenues annually. One in four menstruators cannot afford tampons and pads at some point in their life, a problem exacerbated by the imposition of the “tampon tax.” If menstruators cannot afford period products, they are less likely to attend school or work for fear of bleeding through their clothing, which impedes their educational development and occupational opportunities.
Although liberal activists have adopted “tampon tax” repeal as a vehicle to promote menstrual equity, Laura Strausfeld, founder of Period Law, an advocacy group that aims to revoke the “tampon tax,” identifies tax repeal as a “rare bipartisan movement.” I spent my remaining two days at the caucuses discussing this tax with caucus-goers, and — in fulfillment of Straufeld’s prognostication — every person I interviewed was receptive to “tampon tax” revocation; however, they expressed different reasons for doing so.
“[The ‘tampon tax’] is sexist and discriminatory because you can’t go without [menstrual products],” a woman caucusing for Nikki Haley reflected. Barb, a woman caucusing for Vivek Ramaswamy, dislikes the “tampon tax” because she thinks “we have too many taxes altogether.” Iowa Senator Joni Ernst agreed, explaining that eliminating any form of taxes is conventionally supported by Libertarian and Republican parties. Endorsement of “tampon tax” repeal was notably not limited to menstruators. John Hathaway — a man caucusing for former President Donald Trump — also liked tax revocation because he sees the “tampon tax” as unnecessary.
In Iowa, many caucus-goers supported “tampon tax” repeal because it entails the elimination of superfluous taxes, rather than because it uplifts women. For example, caucus-goer Barb endorsed tax revocation yet held anti-feminist prerogatives, sharing, “I think feminists tell a lie that it’s better to work for some other boss than your family.” Another woman caucusing for Vivek Ramaswamy expressed support for tax revocation yet simultaneously advocated for restrictions on female autonomy. Endorsing a six-week state ban on abortion, she expressed, “[Ramaswamy] said it first: we serve one God and that life begins at conception.”
A common Republican motive behind repealing the “tampon tax” — to cut taxes of any kind — was also evident in the halls of the Iowa Senate. In 2019, Democratic Senator Janet Petersen introduced SF 173, which would have eliminated the sales tax on period products in Iowa. Although SF 173 died in a subcommittee, SF 2367 — a tax package featuring significant corporate tax cuts and various tax exemptions, including the revocation of the “tampon tax” — was unanimously endorsed in the Senate and Assembly in June of 2022. Democratic Senate Minority leader Pam Jochum acknowledges “tampon tax” rescission as one of few bipartisan silver linings during the 2022 legislative session. As for why it took until 2023 for Iowa to revoke the “tampon tax,” Senator Petersen posits that it was the “political liability” of “comparing corporate tax cuts to [menstrual products and diapers]” that finally motivated legislators to act.
Just as the politics of the pandemic encouraged tax revocation in Iowa, the current political environment is ripe for encouraging Republicans to ax the “tampon tax.” Because the Republican Party is under pressure for its anti-abortion posture, Republican candidates need to find other avenues to combat the notion that their party is “waging a war on women.” In fact, after the Dobbs decision, Texas repealed the “tampon tax” to restore trust in the GOP’s commitment to supporting women. The underlying political imperative for Republicans to “stop the bleeding” over what are perceived to be anti-female priorities suggests that “tampon tax” revocation can find bipartisan support across the 21 states that still impose it.
This new-found bipartisanship is a bit uncomfortable since it is motivated by factors other than menstrual or gender equity. Nonetheless, it is a red streak of promise, which may encourage a flow of discourse and bipartisan collaboration in the “bloody” field of female healthcare policy. Period.
Matteson Epstein is a junior at the Marlborough School for Girls in Los Angeles. She is currently enrolled in Marlborough’s Honors Research Program under the mentorship of Laura Strausfeld, founder of Period Law, and founded Feminists for Education, a student-led organization that aims to challenge and address gender inequities within educational institutions.