Campos 1

Alyssa Campos

Professor Kate Kimball

ENC 2135

3 November 2022

The Time of the Month for Change

It’s time to change the cycle! It is a luxury to have a menstrual cycle according to the

government. Feminine hygiene products are not taxed as necessities nationally. Although being a

multibillion-dollar global industry and bringing in a large revenue, the tax on period products

makes them available to less and discriminates against women. I will evaluate two artifacts which

relate to the pink tax and its unfairness. Their different routes to display the same message help us

gain a deeper understanding of how legislators respond to the people’s efforts to end the sales tax

on tampons and other period products. Wainwright, Crawford, and Gold effectively employ ethos,

logos, and voice in their podcast to convince readers of the struggle women face through this

intermediate scrutiny, while Jordan Gass-Poore's NPR article uses ethos, logos, and pathos to

advocate for this citizen’s movement to solve this public health issue.

The first artifact, “Why the Tampon Tax is Unconstitutional” by The CAP Impact Podcast

hosted by John Wainwright, professor from Pace University School of Law with co-worker Emily

Gold and guest Bridget Crawford, is a podcast discussing the unfairness of placing a sales tax on

feminine menstrual products. It analyses how this tax is unconstitutional and why it is still in

place. As a podcast on current issues and attempts society has made in effort to make a change, the

article’s target audience is most likely politically involved people or environmentalists. As a public

resource, more than half the population has listened to a podcast, gaining information by listening

to talk hosts express emotions or add humor to a topic, conveying pathos. They also typically
 Campos 2

utilize ethos to establish themselves as credible on the topic being discussed. As a constitutional

law expert, Emily Crawford brings ethos to the podcast. She gives an insider’s point of view by

explaining to listeners what a sales tax is, why this tax is unconstitutional, and efforts to pass this

bill by legislation. She states, “if you have the government exempting other necessities…but not

exempting one that’s linked to female sex, that’s basically a form of facial discrimination…

triggering intermediate scrutiny” (10:42). Her knowledge of the law and usage of key terms used

in law practice that are violated by the tampon tax such as equal protection violation, facial

discrimination, and intermediate scrutiny, adding logos, convinces listeners of the validity of her

argument. Being able to put legal terms to the issue says more than just saying it is a bad tax and

should be changed, it tells readers why the change should be made, making the argument more

convincing. Pathos is utilized in this podcast as well when Wainwright explains that legislators

most likely feel a discomfort in discussing women’s bodies, resulting in a lack of knowledge on

the issue. He explains to the audience that he is only aware of this issue and is comfortable with

discussion of the woman’s body due his workplace. The unfortunate fact they provided about the

lack of female representation in government appeals strongly to the audiences’ emotions,

especially when Gold stated that, “women need tampons, pads, and similar products in order to be

full citizens and participate in all aspects of public life” (3:50). Being able to add emotional

emphases to this quote through voice is a unique characteristic of podcasts, helping the reader feel

more persuaded and involved. Gold’s quote suggests that not having adequate access to tampons

would result in a woman’s period to be visible, thus preventing her from preforming regular

everyday activities makes people of all genders put themselves in the shoes of the woman being

referenced. To have to sit at home for a week each month, not enjoying aspects of life outside of

your home or being unable to go out and make a living is a threatening idea to all.
 Campos 3

Another artifact being analyzed is the article, “Citing Gender Bias, State Lawmakers Move

to Eliminate 'Tampon Tax'” written by Jordan Gass-Poore’ published on the National Public

Radio website, this piece includes quotes from many politicians concerning the unfair taxation of

feminine hygiene products. Analyzing the possible reasons why the bill to exempt period products

from sales tax has yet to be passed in some states. As a public genre, news articles are meant to

inform readers about events by presenting them in fair and non-biased accounts. They typically

utilize ethos and logos to reach the audience, focusing on getting the story right. They are

researched, and fact checked by many who work within the news company, aiming to appeal to a

large audience. This article uses ethos by referencing President Obama saying that there is no

reason this tax exists other than the fact that men made the law. This quote coming from a former

president, concerning the lack of male awareness on the issue of tax on feminine hygiene products

coming from a former president, and a male (providing a different perspective) appeals to readers

because of the celebrity endorsement. Gass-Poore’ references that there is a taboo surrounding

menstruation that keeps people from discussing it, as products are placed in the same aisle of

contraception labeling them as disgraceful. Pathos is used in this NPR article to help readers

understand that gender discrimination is not new, and it has negative effects on women.

Representative Melissa Sargent states that “women’s health has been misunderstood and neglected

throughout history” (5). She explains to readers that women have always felt penalized for their

biology. The recurring incidents in history being reference of when women are treated differently

than men bring facts to the issue of gender discrimination. Having to pay extra tax on tampons as

well as not having free ones available to them as we do toilet papers in public restrooms is seen as

just another tally mark. The history of individual states such as Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New

Jersey and others passing the bill to drop the tax and their success is referenced, adding logos to
 Campos 4

the argument. Alongside the statistics on the average number of periods in a woman’s lifetime,

costs of tampons per month, and the average cost of the tax on tampons being mentioned. This

statistical evidence helps readers know the financial implications this tax has on woman. Forcing

the readers to think how this tax being dropped would affect there’s or others’ lives.

The artifacts differ from each other in many ways, specifically in their arguments of why

feminine hygiene products should be untaxed. While they both support the cause, only the first

artifact thinks of it other than gender discrimination and discusses how the tax fails irrational basis

review. It aims to appeal to the audience who believe government is not created to be fair. The

NPR article considers the long-term success passing this bill would have on females and how

currently the process of menstruation is looked at grossly. Both articles discuss why lawmakers

may vote against this bill (including the government mostly being made up of men) and how many

states so far have made the leap to remove the tax from tampons.

Over the last decade the issue of the gender pay gap has been brought attention to and

efforts have been made to fix it. It is time for this other unfair treatment of women to be evaluated

and solved. Although this tax provides a large revenue for government, it is just another drop in

the bucket compared to the many other sources of revenue the government has. These artifacts

show how the tampon tax needs to be demolished. The first artifact discusses the issue in legal

terms, as well as discussing how other items that are less of necessities are not taxed. The legal

terms support the unfairness and lack of representation in the government. While the reference of

untaxed items offers a solution to the issue, indicating that other states have proven that this tax is

only a portion of government revenue and can be made up elsewhere in more fair terms. The

second artifact shows how this tax is the most gender biased, referencing the public health issue it

creates, the financial impact it has, and its potential impact if untaxed. This tax being dropped
 Campos 5

would provide many women who are in financial need with less stress, reduced health issues, and

give women more access to success in the future by relieving stress and making a impact in the

movement to end gender discrimination. It is time to end the cycle of gender discrimination in the

United States, especially in our current society, when we are giving rise to a progressive, pro-

government generation.
 Campos 6

Works Cited

Crawford, Bridget, Gold, Emily, and Wainwright, John, hosts. “Why the Tampon Tax is

Unconstitutional”. The CAP Impact Podcast, episode 55, Capital Center for Law & Politics

at McGeorge School of Law, 19 September 2019.

Gass-Poore', Jordan. “Citing Gender Bias, State Lawmakers Move to Eliminate 'Tampon Tax'.”

NPR, 6 Mar. 2016.