From the local to federal level, menstrual equity initiatives have gained significant traction in recent years — and for a good reason. In Illinois, New Hampshire and New York, all public middle and high schools are required to make menstrual hygiene products (MHPs) freely available in restrooms. California’s efforts toward achieving menstrual equity, however, have been less progressive.

Senate Bill 92, which took effect at the start of 2020, exempts MHPs from taxation until the end of 2021. And since the passage of Assembly Bill 10 in 2017, all public secondary schools meeting a 40% poverty threshold are required to stock 50% of restrooms with MHPs.

Last month, Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, a long-time period-equity advocate in the state Legislature, introduced AB-367, which would extend AB 10 to all public secondary schools, community colleges and campuses in the California State University system. The benefits are well-worth the expense, as I have seen during my efforts to improve access to MHPs.

In my junior year at UC Berkeley, I established the Coalition for the Institutionalization of Free Menstrual Products (CIFMP), a student-led organization providing free access to MHPs across campus. To better understand the experiences of menstruating students on campus, we conducted a survey prior to launching.

The results were shocking: From leaving campus early to turning toilet paper into makeshift absorbents, lack of access to MHPs was unfairly impacting menstruating students across campus. In fact, 58% of respondents agreed that not having access to MHPs on campus had negatively impacted their student experience.

The reactions to our organization have been overwhelmingly positive. In the early days, I spent a lot of time restocking restrooms myself and was pleasantly surprised by how fast supplies were being depleted. By making MHPs freely available at select locations around campus, we helped salvage the issue of getting your period during the school day with no MHPs on hand, a problem faced by 76% of survey respondents.

Many students reached out to me personally to express their gratitude, overjoyed to stay on schedule after having avoided an inconvenient situation. Among those who benefit most from increased access to MHPs were low-income and minority students, consistent with our finding that 43% of those surveyed found MHPs financially burdening. High rates of period poverty are especially prevalent among low-income populations, further confirmed by  a 2019 study that found that 64% of low-income women in St. Louis are unable to afford MHPs.

Improving access to MHPs alone will not achieve menstrual equity, but it does mitigate a major source of mental and financial stress for menstruators. And the resulting gains can be substantial. A 2002 study, for instance, found that women in the United States lost $1,692 (equivalent to $2600 in 2021) in wages annually as a result of heavy or abnormal menstrual bleeding. Menstrual equity initiatives can thus be instrumental to minimizing these losses.

Still, in 2016, Governor Brown vetoed AB 1561, the original bill to exempt MHPs from taxation, stating that the tax break would “cost the General Fund money.” Considering that the tampon tax comprises less than 0.02% of tax revenue, I believe this mindset needs to be seriously reconsidered, especially since the resulting gains could offset the costs.

Policy action at the state level is necessary to accelerate progress towards menstrual equity. Passage of AB 367, to extend the current tax exemptions on MHPs beyond the end of this year, should be just the first step.

Emaan Siddique is an analyst at an economics consulting firm, a recent UC Berkeley graduate and founder of the Coalition for the Institutionalization of Free Menstrual Products.