Seeing any progress towards menstrual equity at the federal level should be commended. But here's my problem with this and a on how we differ.

TL;DR: ending period poverty can't be achieved by tying access to menstrual products to tax-advantaged financial accounts.

1. This provision was added to the CARES Act and mirrors a bill she introduced in '18 on the same topic. This bill was actually lobbied for by the banking industry, because it helps prop up Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

2. For those that don't know, in order to qualify for an HSA, you need health insurance that qualifies as a high deductible health plan. Again: you need health insurance.

3. You, your employer, or anyone who wants to contribute to your Health Savings Account can do so. But as you can see, you need the disposable income to be able to set aside in the first place. So now we're up to two requirements that leave out low-income people with periods.

4. You also need receipts to prove you used HSA funds for qualified expenses, and some HSAs charge monthly fees (you can see now why the banking industry would support them and lobby for HSA friendly legislation).

5. If you're low-income, or an undocumented neighbor, you can already see how this is highly problematic and leaves the most vulnerable and in need of relief out of the solution.

6. If we're to eliminate period poverty, which we absolutely must, legislative efforts need to focus not on helping the banking industry with legislation that serves those with the means to put money aside but...

7. focus on making menstrual products free for all, much like Scotland is on the verge of doing: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/27/809990550/scotland-poised-to-become-1st-country-to-make-period-products-free

8. Finally, there's no guarantee that this provision, which is a part of he CARES Act, will be a permanent fixture. We can't achieve menstrual equity if the solutions are not truly affordable and accessible and cater only to those with means. END.