Do I really need to point out the difference between toilet paper and tampons?
A state lawmaker is proposing the state supply free feminine hygiene products in all state-run buildings, including schools.
Rep. Melissa Sargent (D-Madison) said the products are “a basic necessity for half of the world’s population.”
“We must overcome the stigma around menstruation as it is a natural occurrence,” she wrote. “There is no reason that toilet paper, paper towels, and soap should be provided in all restrooms while another crucial necessity is not available.”
I’ve heard of politicians promising a chicken in every pot, but now the slogan for her will be a tampon in …
I know it must be painful to be in the minority party, but really, free tampons and pads as a state mandate/law?
My first reaction is to ask myself why it is treated differently. Is there some real, practical reason why? Or is it an artifact of sexism? I’m really not sure. Other things people need when toileting are supplied as a matter of course. Not this. Interesting question.
Not really an interesting question.
First, there are a whole lot different sizes and types of pads(I work at K-Mart and have to stock them)) so how are you going to accommodate all the differences. And some of it depends on the woman’s size, so does each building have to have a supply clerk handing out the different pads?
Anyways, many junior and high schools give out pads for girls who need them if they don’t bring them to school.
What else should the government give away for free scott?
Diapers for babies and adults who need them?
Toilet paper comes in single- and two-ply, so your argument is invalid. Does single-ply “not work”?
Who could we ask to determine if there isn’t a single style of item that would be sufficient for this purpose? It’s a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma!
I too, feel this is a silly proposal. But we can be pretty sure it will never pass with current legislature, don’t we?
To answer your question, “What else should the government give away for free”, apparently the answer is millions of dollars, funneled through WEDC.
The scary part is: If Democrats were in charge and Doyle still the govenor, this proposal might have seen the light of day.
Possibly, we will never know. But with the current cast of fools under the dome we now have enabled “blaze pink” to be worn during deer gun season. If that color is safer than blaze orange, I am all for it. But to foist it off as a way to get more female hunters is ridiculous. When my deer hunting daughter heard of this her direct quote was, “How stupid do they think women are”?
It’s just an option. No one is being forced to wear pink.
If Democrats did this, they would mandate women wear pink based on past regulatory practice.
There is a huge moral difference between the parties on points like this.
“based on past regulatory practice”. What does that mean? If it was in the regulations, that means it was the law. You really don’t think these out, do you.
And where is there a moral decision involved in wearing pink?
I mean when Democrats regulate, they like to use terms “mandate”, “fine”, “penalty”, “imprisonment”, “arrest”, etc.
Just look at Obamacare.
So what is the purpose of a law if you don’t enforce it? “Gee, judge, I didn’t mean to shoot all those people. We OK with that”? “Sure, kevin, have a nice day”. I thought you are a god-fearing, bible thumping, god-fearing man. When did that change? Or is selective enforcement your mantra now? You need a civics lesson as well.
You look at Obamacare, I’ll look at Romneycare.
Rep Gannon and other old white men continue to know what’s best for women’s Vagina’s