House Bill 510, titled the Menstrual Equity for All Act, would create a sales tax exemption for feminine hygiene products in North Carolina. The bill defines feminine hygiene products to include items such as tampons, panty liners, menstrual cups, and sanitary napkins, and adds them to the list of items exempt from state sales tax. It also clarifies that these products are distinct from grooming and hygiene products such as soap, shampoo, toothpaste, deodorant, and sunscreen.
In addition to the tax change, the bill appropriates $750,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Public Instruction for each year of the 2025-2027 fiscal biennium to support the Feminine Hygiene Products Grant Program under G.S. 115C-377. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, with the tax provisions applying to sales made on or after that date.
Impact
The bill would amend North Carolina’s sales tax statutes, specifically G.S. 105-164.3 and G.S. 105-164.13, to classify feminine hygiene products as exempt items. This would reduce the cost of menstrual products for consumers and remove state sales tax from qualifying purchases. It would also create a recurring state appropriation to the Department of Public Instruction to fund school-related access to feminine hygiene products through an existing grant program, affecting public education funding and menstrual product availability in schools.
Sentiment
Based on the bill title and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a public health, equity, and affordability initiative, with no recorded committee debate or votes provided in the available materials. The absence of transcripts or vote history means there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied context, but the bill’s purpose suggests a generally favorable policy posture toward reducing barriers to menstrual products.
Contention
The main policy issues likely to draw attention are the fiscal impact of the sales tax exemption and the recurring $750,000 appropriation from the General Fund. Supporters would likely emphasize menstrual equity, affordability, and school access, while any critics would likely focus on state revenue loss, the use of recurring appropriations, and whether the grant program is the best mechanism for addressing access. The bill text itself does not show any formal controversy, and no committee testimony or vote record is available to identify specific opponents.