Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Menstrual Hygiene topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee advances bill to require period products in state building bathrooms
Summary
The House State Government Committee voted to report House Bill 337, which would direct the Department of General Services to supply free menstrual-hygiene products in at least 50% of bathrooms in specified state-owned buildings; supporters called it a public-health measure while opponents cited cost concerns.
The House State Government Committee on April 24 voted to report House Bill 337, which would require the Department of General Services to make menstrual-hygiene products available in bathrooms of Commonwealth-owned buildings where the public obtains services.
Supporters said the measure addresses period poverty and aligns basic hygiene policy for public facilities. Representative Rhett Green, the bill’s author, told the committee the proposal would build on bipartisan work begun last session and extend access that some local governments already provide. “Period poverty is real … these supplies are a necessity and not a luxury,” Green said.
The bill’s language directs DGS to place dispensers in at least 50% of bathrooms in covered buildings; Green said some facilities and small storage structures are excluded. During discussion, members raised questions about the number of state buildings covered and the fiscal impact. Representative Schaefer asked how many buildings would be affected; Green said the committee would be provided that information when available. Representative Roy said he was inclined to vote no until cost and scope were clearer. “What is the state's responsibility financially be, with this bill?” Roy asked. Green said the administration included a $3 million line item in the governor’s proposal and that more detailed cost estimates would come through the appropriations process.
Several members defended the bill as a public-health and access issue. Representative Kenyatta criticized arguments that invoked unrelated claims — for example, that men were buying or stealing products — calling such claims “non sequiturs” and urging members to focus on the bill’s substance. Representative Waxman reminded colleagues that fiscal details are developed during the appropriations review and said the governor had set aside funding.
After debate, the committee moved to report the bill for further consideration. The committee record shows the motion to report was offered by the chair and seconded by Representative Sanchez; the roll call concluded with the chair announcing the motion passes.
The bill will proceed through the legislative process, where appropriations and DGS implementation details will be developed.
