I’m suing Missouri to eliminate the discriminatory sales tax on menstrual products | Opinion
I’m the daughter of a women’s rights advocate who devoted her work to serving women in a country that prioritized them last. I am a longtime Missouri resident and currently in my third year of law school at Mizzou. I have watched our state grow out of its outdated ways. For example, I moved to Missouri in fourth grade and attended what was then called Robert E. Lee Elementary School — but has since been renamed.
Most recently, I witnessed Missouri become the first state to draw back its total ban on abortion. In the spirit of change, I present to you my story about trying to eliminate the discriminatory sales tax on menstrual products.
Discussions about menstruation are stigmatized and unwelcome. Many dismiss the topic altogether as inappropriate. “Ew, gross! Do we really need to talk about this?!” Yes, we do. Especially in Missouri, where 64% of women report not being able to afford menstrual products.
For me, it all began with a personal purchase: menstrual underwear, an essential item for my health and comfort. When I noticed that sales tax had been applied to my purchase, I felt a familiar frustration. Missouri, like many other states, still treats menstrual products as “luxury” items by including them in the category of goods that it subjects to sales tax, unlike the “necessities” it chooses to exempt. Prescription drugs are tax-exempt in Missouri. Food has a lower sales tax rate of 1.225%, as opposed to the usual 4.225%. The miscategorization of menstrual products in this system perpetuates a harm, known as the tampon tax, where people who menstruate are subject to a tax on products vital to their well-being.
Missouri, along with 20 other states, has been charging the tampon tax for far too long. The result? Girls are unable to attend high school; mothers are forced to choose between purchasing food or menstrual products; and nonprofits are left picking up the government’s tab.
Period poverty part of larger picture
Many members of our society do not know what period poverty is, let alone realize the impact it has on our communities. Period poverty is the inability to afford and access basic menstrual products — therefore it affects low-income women most. The tampon tax is a part of the larger period poverty picture. Combined with menstrual stigma, period poverty can lead to women experiencing diseases such as urinary tract infections due to use of improper alternatives to menstrual products — rags, toilet paper, even toxic napkins. Women without paid leave lose out on wages to take time off work because they don’t have access to menstrual products. Period poverty especially affects young girls. One study showed that 33.6% of girls at a St. Louis high school skipped class because they lacked menstrual products to get through the day. As a community, how can we tolerate such blatant inequity? I certainly cannot, and that has brought me face to face with those who can end this discriminatory tax for good.
Determined to test whether the law could provide relief, I filed a request with the Missouri Department of Revenue, seeking a refund for the sales taxes I paid on my period underwear. I got the idea from the nonprofit Period Law’s nationwide Tampon Tax Refund Activation. My claim was reasonable: These products are as essential as any other medical item, many of which are exempt from sales tax. Yet the state rejected my claim. It was a moment of awakening. If the system wouldn’t work for one person quietly requesting a refund, then perhaps it needed to be challenged on a broader scale.
So, I decided to sue. My lawsuit isn’t just about getting back $4.10. It is about how the tampon tax is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women on the basis of sex. By taxing menstrual products, Missouri effectively penalizes women for a biological reality over which they have no control. This isn’t a theoretical injustice — it’s a concrete monthly cost that adds up over a lifetime, disproportionately affecting those who are already financially vulnerable. On average, a woman will spend about $9,600 on menstrual products during her lifetime. That is money that could instead be invested in her education.
College athletics tickets, bingo supplies exempt
Some people consider this a poverty problem, not a discrimination problem. But let’s examine existing tax exemption laws and what products they apply to in Missouri: ticket sales to college athletic events, bingo supplies and equipment, aircraft, fencing material for agricultural sites, and film or record rentals. The state exempts all these items — which are entirely optional purchases — while continuing to tax residents on products without which they would bleed through their clothes.
Meanwhile, Missouri’s sales tax system suggests that making medical devices accessible to its residents is one of its aims. Currently, hundreds of medical products are exempt from sales tax, ranging from hearing aids to wheelchairs. I believe menstrual products should already be exempt from sales tax because they are medical devices too, as classified by the Food and Drug Administration. This, as well as sex-based discrimination, is part of my lawsuit’s claim.
More than half of the states in the country have recognized the medical necessity of menstrual products and exempted them from sales tax, yet Missouri women are still left with the continuing financial burden.
Critics argue that the tax revenue generated from menstrual products is vital, and that removing it would complicate the state’s tax system. In fact, the opposite is true. The revenue brought in from charging sales tax on menstrual products in Missouri is 0.05% of the state’s total revenue. Exempting these medical devices would in fact make the state tax code more uniform, honoring what it claims to value: medical accessibility. Consider this: If it’s truly about revenue, why do we exempt prescriptions of Viagra? Because, in our current society, men’s erectile dysfunction is necessary to exempt, while women’s menstruating needs are not. The fact that menstrual products have been left out of this category isn’t a coincidence. It’s a reflection of the historical neglect of women’s health issues.
Tampons in high demand at nonprofits
In our own community, nonprofits are struggling to meet the high demand for expensive menstrual products. The Tiger Pantry, a MU student-led nonprofit, has announced a shortage of menstrual products and reports limiting the number that clients in need may receive. Other nonprofits, such as True North, Love Columbia and the City of Refuge, have expressed similar challenges and shortages. My research on period poverty led me to meet with these organizations, which have shown great interest in the outcome of my work, and hope that the people they serve will have access to sustainable, affordable and nontoxic menstrual products as a result.
Taking legal action was not an easy choice. It involves time, effort and the willingness to take on a bureaucracy that often seems impenetrable. But as a law student, I am equipped with the knowledge and passion to fight for what’s right, not just in theory but in practice. As a member of Mizzou’s Women’s Law Association, I’ve been able to collect donations and raise money as part of our annual Period Drive to provide sustainable and nontoxic menstrual products to the Tiger Pantry — which was thrilled to receive reusable products, such as menstrual cups and period underwear, that would minimize their clients need to purchase additional items in the future.
Ultimately, my hope is that this lawsuit will do more than just rectify a wrong I experienced. I want it to spark a broader conversation about how our laws, even the most mundane ones such as sales tax codes, can perpetuate inequality. If we can get Missouri to recognize menstrual products as necessities and eliminate the sales tax, it would set a powerful precedent. It could inspire other states to reevaluate their own tax codes and address this unfair burden. It’s a small but significant step toward equity and fairness.
As law students, we are often asked why we chose this path. My answer is simple: to use the law to make a tangible difference. And that’s what I’m determined to accomplish. At my first hearing on Feb. 19, I hope the Department of Revenue will agree with me.