Women want state to drop ‘tampon tax’

Ohio Republicans have passed a slew of tax cuts and exemptions over the years, but Democrats and women’s advocates question why none has done away with the state sales tax on femininehygiene products.

“While the tax paid on these products is not so much money to you or me, for many women, the dollars and cents matter,” said Columbus Councilwoman Elizabeth Brown, who testified in the Statehouse on Tuesday in favor of a bill that would eliminate what some call the “pink tax.”

House Bill 61 would exempt tampons, panty liners, sanitary napkins and other feminine-hygiene products from the sales tax. Supporters, including sponsor Rep. Brigid Kelly, D-Cincinnati, argue that the products are medical necessities that should not be subject to taxation.

In fact, House Republicans made a similar argument two weeks ago when the chamber passed a bill exempting glasses and contact lenses from the sales tax.

The Legislative Service Commission estimates that the “pink tax” exemption would cost the state up to $3.9 million per year in lost revenue, and it would cost counties and local transit authorities such as COTA a total of up to $1 million.

By comparison, the glasses-and-contacts exemption passed two weeks ago would cost $22.4 million per year, plus $6 million for counties and transit authorities.

Rep. John Becker, R-Cincinnati, asked Brown why the bill shouldn’t also include toothpaste, deodorant and shaving cream.

“Tampons and pads don’t have an analogy in other forms of care products,” Brown responded. “They are not like toothpaste. They are not optional, and makeshift solutions are bad for your health.”

Most women also go through a box of tampons much faster than they go through a tube of toothpaste, Brown said.

Nine states, including Pennsylvania, exempt feminine-hygiene products from their sales tax. Five other states have no sales tax. Canada repealed its sales tax on feminine-hygiene products in 2015.

Julia Heath of the University of Cincinnati Economics Center noted that sales taxes are regressive, so the exemption would have a greater benefit for low- and moderate-income women.

Ohio’s tax also is being challenged in court. A lawsuit filed in the Ohio Court of Claims last year on behalf of four Cleveland-area women argues that the sales tax on feminine-hygiene products violates the equal-protection clause of both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions because men don’t have to pay it.

The lawsuit seeks the refund of at least $66 million to female consumers.

Nitasha Mehta of Boxed. com called it a “discriminatory and unnecessary tax on a basic biological function.”

She told legislators on Tuesday that the online shopping club last year lowered the price on tampons and pads in states that charge a sales tax, to offset the tax for women in those states.

“The final price is equal to what women would have paid if this unfair tax did not exist in the first place,” Mehta said.

Asked whether Speaker Cliff Rosenberger, R-Clarksville, supports the bill, spokesman Brad Miller said he and members will continue to review the long-term implications.

“As part of that process, this bill is part of a larger conversation regarding Ohio’s tax policies and expenditures,” he said.