Analyzing “The Learn with Dignity Act”

Abbey Malbon

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

*Throughout this essay, I will refer to individuals who experience a period as “menstruators'' as
much as possible. Unfortunately, I cannot alter the rhetoric used in statistical data, which often
only uses the word “women”. It is important to understand that not all menstruators are women,
and not all women menstruate.
Analyzing “The Learn Dignity Act”

“Period Poverty”, a phrase that has been recently popularized amongst academics and

popular media. The term seeks to describe the struggle that low-income menstruators face when

purchasing period products. A study conducted by St. Louis University’s Dr. Anne Sebert

Kuhlmann surveyed low-income individuals across the St. Louis area. Two-thirds of women

reported going without menstrual products at least once throughout the year due to the menstrual

product’s inaccessible costs. Additionally, one-fifth of the women surveyed reported that this

occurred on a monthly basis and they often are faced with the decisions of purchasing food or

menstrual products. Within the United States, period poverty looks like the aforementioned

study. Menstruators experiencing homelessness or identifying as low-income are most greatly

inconvenienced by the standard prices of menstrual products and the different taxes that various

states maintain on “luxury goods”.

In thirty-six states across the U.S. menstrual products are classified as luxury goods and

taxed as such. Deloitte, a financial advising and consulting network, defines the luxury tax as “a

tax placed on goods considered expensive, unnecessary, and non-essential. Such goods include

expensive cars, private jets, yachts, jewelry, etc” (Luxury Tax - What Is the End Game? 2015). In

2019, Illinois legislators voted to eliminate any additional sales taxes on menstrual products, and

currently, fourteen states have done the same. While products like Viagra and Rogaine are

considered medically necessary, U.S. legislators are consistently debating the legitimate

necessity to meet a menstruators basic needs. Additionally, it’s important to understand that

period poverty is not an issue unique to the United States but it has the potential to impact the

21.4 million women living in poverty in the U.S. (Bleiweis et al., 2020). When period products

become inaccessible, menstruators are forced to use dangerous alternatives that can lead to

long-term infections and damage to the uterus. Without proper products, individuals are resorting
Analyzing “The Learn Dignity Act”

to items like rags, homemade tampons and pads, socks, and toilet paper. Additionally, in

instances when proper menstrual products, or makeshift products, are used for longer than the

recommended duration, toxic shock syndrome and various bacterial infections can occur.

Despite widespread discussions of destigmatizing menstruation and recognizing period

products as basic healthcare necessities, there is little legislation established within The United

States to address the issues and echo the destigmatized sentiment. However, there are three states

that have been key players in establishing progressive legislation. In 2016, New York City

became the first city in the United States to provide free tampons and pads in public schools,

various municipal facilities, and homeless shelters. In 2019, the state of New York passed the

“Menstrual Equity For All Act” mandating free and accessible menstrual products in schools,

“for incarcerated individuals and detainees”, “homeless individuals under emergency food and

shelter grant programs”, government buildings, and in businesses that employ “not less than 100

employees”. In 2017, California added to their Education code with an Assembly Bill that

requires “a public school maintaining any combination of classes from grade 6 to grade 12...to

stock 50% of the school’s bathrooms with feminine hygiene products, as defined” (AB-10

Feminine Hygiene Products: Public School Restrooms, 2017). In Illinois, “The Learn With

Dignity Act” went into effect on January 1st, 2018, and requires “the school district shall make

feminine hygiene products available, at no cost to students, in the bathrooms of school buildings”

(Learn with Dignity Act, 2018). While similar, the policies established in New York, California,

and Illinois all vary in one extremely important aspect, funding.

“The Learn with Dignity Act” evidently points to school districts for funding, while

ultimately, it may be the very school districts with the greatest need that lack the financial

infrastructure to implement this law properly. Lobbyists, nonprofit organizations, and most
Analyzing “The Learn Dignity Act”

importantly, student activists are calling on legislators to address the major discrepancies of the

policy. “The Learn with Dignity Act” while arguably progressive and well-intentioned lacks

funding and proper mandate requirements. If schools are found out of compliance - nothing

happens. For schools to be found out of compliance, there need to be people checking for

compliance in the first place, and there is not a system in place that ensures this.

I have chosen to analyze this specific policy because I have personally been a part of student

initiatives to push for stricter funding and enforcement of the legislation. While no tangible new

policy has been introduced to amend or replace “The Learn with Dignity Act”, it is important to

understand that pace of legislation is slow and that doesn’t mean that new propositions aren’t

consistently being drafted or considered behind the scenes. The proposed change, which would

be to allocate state funding to purchase the menstrual products for school districts and implement

a system of enforcement, would solve the inconsistencies that are present within the policy. Its

sentiment is strong, and it sets out to address period poverty amongst Illinois students. However,

it lacks in outlining the logistics of implementation and is up for open-ended interpretation by

school districts.

For “The Learn with Dignity Act” there are many players that possess the influence for

proposing new legislation or amendments. Lobbyists from The National Organization for

Women and Planned Parenthood were key players in the initial stages of this legislation.

Additionally, house sponsors Litesa E. Wallace and Linda Chapa LaVia were the initial

legislators to promote the bill. Each of these players strongly supported the bill and initiatives to

receive state funding. However, legislators quickly realized that the bill would not pass if

mandating funding from the state, so it was determined that it would be up to school districts to

manage the funds to comply with the legislation. The legislation was only sponsored by
Analyzing “The Learn Dignity Act”

democrats, both within the house and senate. This is key when understanding the lack of

financial support and declaration of basic healthcare from legislators. As evident in the voting

history, the majority of legislators that voted no on “The Learn with Dignity Act” were

republican, with a 34-16 final vote. Instances like this make it very apparent that menstruation, a

basic bodily function, has become politicized by The United States government.

Each of these players - lobbyists, activists, NGOs, and legislators holds unique power in

the policy process. Activists, especially student activists, possess a unique power because they

aren’t bound to the rules that pertain to lobbyists and NGOs. They maintain the ability to contact

legislators relentlessly, schedule meetings, frequent office buildings, and apply pressure as a

concerned citizen and recipient of the benefits the legislation provides. In a research study

conducted by The Center for the Study of Higher Education Study at The Pennsylvania State

University, findings showed that contemporary student activism proves to be highly effective,

particularly amongst college students. “Although students learned to speak through protest,

demonstrations, and strikes, these practices led to disruptions in their formal education. Malik

reports that student boycotts of their classes on occasion led to temporary university closures.

This consequence required students to learn to manage priorities and balance seemingly

competing demands” (Quaye, 2007). Ironically, “The Learn with Dignity Act” is intended to

provide products to discontinue any disruptions that menstruating during school may cause,

however, it is students disrupting that proves to be most effective in changing the legislation.

Legislators hold the obvious power within this scenario of proposing amendments to the

legislation and designing a comprehensive plan for state-allocated funding. However, most

legislation is voted on quickly, and without proper intent or dedication, a majority of legislators

do not possess the time to develop a funding plan solely on their own. Their power lies in
Analyzing “The Learn Dignity Act”

ensuring that their colleagues understand the gravity of period poverty and the necessity of

period products being provided as basic healthcare.

For students, this legislation is extremely important. It means accessible products in

bathrooms throughout the school district, and for those in need of those products, it can

transform their experience within the school entirely. For student menstruators that are

experiencing houselessness or cannot afford products, this legislation fosters an environment that

is accessible and prioritizes dignity and health. The act’s priority varies amongst legislators and

is solely dependent upon their views on healthcare and viewing menstrual products as a basic

necessity. With the unfortunate politicizing of menstruation, some policy-makers and legislators

could care less about prioritizing state funding for an initiative that they see as luxurious and

unnecessary.

Based on the methods presented in the Prince Policy appraisal document, it seems that

there is a slim opportunity for this policy to approve funding and stronger enforcement unless

there is significant pressure applied from all levels of government. I believe the greatest

influence on these changes to occur would be to consider a priority. It is urgent that all legislators

voting on these amendments see the value in providing accessible products and removing the

polarized and politicized ideations surrounding menstruation.

To see these amendments and additions to fruition, it’s urgent that there are consistent

avenues of advocacy to educate individuals about period poverty. Advocacy groups, NGOs, and

student activists that are interested in addressing the disparities of “The Learn with Dignity Act”

must know their audience, anticipate the oppositions, and present analytical and anecdotal

material to legislators and policymakers. Engaging these methods outlined in Foundations of

Social Policy by Amanda Smith Barusch will ensure a successful and comprehensive approach
Analyzing “The Learn Dignity Act”

to altering the legislation to ensure more accessible products and long-term funding and equal

distribution throughout school districts.

Analyzing “The Learn Dignity Act”

References

- Bleiweis, R., Boesch, D., & Cawthorn Gaines, A. (2020, August 3). The Basic Facts

About Women in Poverty. Center for American Progress.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2020/08/03/488536/basic-facts-

women-poverty/

- Luxury tax - What is the end game? (2015). Deloitte.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ng/Documents/tax/inside-tax/ng-luxury-t

ax-what-is-the-end-game.pdf

- Menstrual Equity For All Act 2019 (116th) s.1 (USA)

- AB-10 Feminine Hygiene Products: Public School Restrooms 2017 s. 1 (USA)

- Learn With Dignity Act 2018 s. 34-18.53. (USA)

- Quaye, S. J. (2007). Hope and learning: The outcomes of contemporary student activism.

About Campus, 12(2), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.205

- Barusch, A. S. (2017). Empowerment Series: Foundations of Social Policy: Social

Justice in Human Perspective (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.