Committee hears opposition to repeal of law requiring free menstrual products in school restrooms; advocates cite attendance, health and dignity benefits

Representative Katie Petternehl introduced House Bill 415, which would repeal RSA 189:16-a — the 2019 statute requiring school districts to supply menstrual products in school restrooms. Petternehl said the bill is prompted by an unfunded-mandate concern under Article 28-a of the New Hampshire Constitution: "My issue with this bill is the unfunded mandate portion of it," she said, adding that districts currently bear costs and the state constitution bars unfunded mandates unless local legislative bodies vote to accept them.

Testimony at the hearing was strongly opposed to repeal. Devin Quinn of the New Hampshire Women's Foundation said the law was intended to ensure "freedom to learn without disruption and free of shame or fear of stigma." Public-health and education witnesses, including Girls Inc. of New Hampshire and United Way of Greater Nashua, described "period poverty" and said lack of access forces some students to miss classes or use unsafe alternatives. Girls Inc. cited research showing students miss class for lack of menstrual supplies; United Way and school-nurse representatives said supplying products had become routine for many districts and reduced disruptions.

Multiple student witnesses — including a seventh grader who described having no easy way to access supplies and a Dartmouth student who had worked to implement free products in New Jersey schools — said restroom availability is more discreet and less stigmatizing than sending students to a nurse's office. School nurses' testimony (submitted and summarized) said product placement in bathrooms reduced missed class time and that concerns about misuse or vandalism eased after initial rollout.

Representative Jess Edwards, a co-sponsor, and several other legislators said they supported the bill solely on constitutional and fiscal grounds — that a state law requiring local expenditure without state funding conflicts with the constitutional bar on unfunded mandates. Edwards said a 2019 fiscal note for a related bill previously estimated a state cost (his office cited a historical fiscal-note estimate around $550,000 for statewide supply), and he urged legislative correction so local budgets are not implicitly constrained.

Several speakers told the committee they could not identify local districts that planned to stop supplying products if the law were repealed; rather, they said the statute ensures consistent access across districts and populations.

Ending: The committee left the bill open for further consideration and heard calls from advocates to preserve the statute to protect health, attendance and student dignity; lawmakers raising constitutional concerns asked for more information about current local financing and whether the state should instead appropriate funding.