Our Periods Are Not Your Population Solution

[niyad]

Our Periods Are Not Your Population Solution
PUBLISHED 5/1/2025 by Colby Siegel

Using menstrual education to boost birth rates isn’t empowerment—it’s exploitation dressed up as policy.



Students from around the country rally in front of the Department of Education in Washington on Jan. 28, 2018, in support of free menstrual products for students. (Bonnie Jo Mount / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Menstruation is natural. Bleeding every month isn’t a political act. And yet—somehow, it often ends up as one. From tampon taxes to “Tampon Tim,” to now being name-dropped in federal proposals to boost fertility rates, periods are weaponized by the powers that be. The Trump administration’s latest pro-natalist agenda includes a pitch for government-funded menstrual education. At first glance, this sounds like a step in the right direction: Actual, factual education about menstruation would be a meaningful reform in a country where shame and misinformation still reign supreme.

But this isn’t just about education. It’s about control. The motivation behind this “health initiative” is to push up the birth rate and spur reproductive output, not to advance rights. Menstrual cycles churning the national economic policy gives off serious Handmaid’s Tale energy.
Something as fundamental as menstrual literacy is being twisted into a social engineering experiment. You can’t fight for real equity, while cutting access to birth control or defunding women’s health services. You can’t claim to care about education, while promoting fertility-tracking apps as a replacement for full-functioning contraception. That’s not empowerment—it’s gaslighting.

Menstrual education is vital. But it needs to be rooted in autonomy, inclusivity and science—not in some patriarchal fever dream of repopulating the country. At feminist-focused menstrual equity organizations like the Desai Foundation, transformative menstrual health programs that impact women’s health, dignity and independence are not about controlling bodies or pushing a fertility agenda, but rather giving people tools to understand and navigate their own health.

And while the U.S. has made progress in tackling menstrual stigma and inequity, we’re still facing major setbacks. One in three adults struggle to afford period products, making it clear that period poverty is still rampant in the country with the highest GDP in the world. Trans and nonbinary people are left out of most conversations. And we still have state laws like those in Florida, where young students are banned from talking about their periods in school. Before turning to public incentives to influence private decisions, we should be asking how we might better support menstrual access and equity. That starts with accessible period care, science-based education and policies that center autonomy and care—not control. And maybe, just maybe, trust people to decide when, how and if they want to have children.

https://msmagazine.com/2025/05/01/periods-women-trump-menstruation-sex-education-equity-birthrate-pronatalism/

[LoisB]

1. Excellent!

[ShazzieB]

2. Government-funded menstrual education?

Government-funded menstrual education? As a way to encourage women to have more babies?

The Trump administration’s latest pro-natalist agenda includes a pitch for government-funded menstrual education. At first glance, this sounds like a step in the right direction: Actual, factual education about menstruation would be a meaningful reform in a country where shame and misinformation still reign supreme.

I fail to see how attaining a better knowledge of one's menstrual cycle would cause women to decide to produce more children. Yes, those who want to get pregnant will find it useful to figure out when they are most fertile, but people also use the same knowledge to avoid pregnancy (and rightly so).

I can think of many things the government could do to encourage an increase in the birth rate. Many of the reasons for putting off child bearing and avoiding it all together are economically based, from the medical costs of giving birth to the high cost of child care and preschool, not to mention the expenses involved in feeding, clothing, and sheltering a child and providing health care for at least 18 years, never mind educating that child beyond the years of high school.

Also, I'm sure Schlump's government would prefer to encourage women to stay home to raise their children, but the percentage of the population that can afford to support a family on one income is limited and getting smaller all the time. Yet it doesn't seem to have occurred to any of those tone deaf ass clowns to look at ways to make child bearing and parenting more affordable, much less lower the cost of higher education. Imagine that!

Nice going, numbskulls.