Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill, the Good Samaritan Menstrual Products Act, creates a federal liability shield for individuals, manufacturers, distributors, and nonprofit organizations that donate apparently usable menstrual products in good faith for distribution to people in need. Donors and nonprofits are protected from civil and criminal liability related to the nature, age, packaging, or condition of such apparently usable menstrual products, except where gross negligence or intentional misconduct by the donor, distributor, or nonprofit causes injury or death.
Liberals emphasize the bill's benefit for menstrual equity and waste reduction; conservatives emphasize preserving accountability and state law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly creates a statutory limitation of liability for donations of menstrual products and includes basic definitions and an important exception for gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
This bill, the Good Samaritan Menstrual Products Act, creates a federal liability shield for individuals, manufacturers, distributors, and nonprofit organizations that donate apparently usable menstrual products in good faith for distribution to people in need.
Donors and nonprofits are protected from civil and criminal liability related to the nature, age, packaging, or condition of such apparently usable menstrual products, except where gross negligence or intentional misconduct by the donor, distributor, or nonprofit causes injury or death.
The bill defines "menstrual product" (e.g., pads, tampons, cups, period underwear) and "apparently usable" (a product that meets applicable Federal, State, and local quality and labeling standards even if not readily marketable).
Content is narrowly targeted, non-fiscal, and includes safety carve-outs, which historically improves chances for bipartisan support and relatively easy enactment if prioritized. Nonetheless, the large majority of standalone bills do not become law absent committee action, floor prioritization, or incorporation into larger vehicles, so the realistic likelihood based only on bill text and typical congressional patterns is modest to moderate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly creates a statutory limitation of liability for donations of menstrual products and includes basic definitions and an important exception for gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
Liberals emphasize the bill's benefit for menstrual equity and waste reduction; conservatives emphasize preserving accountability and state law.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize the bill's benefit for menstrual equity and waste reduction; conservatives emphasize preserving accountability and state law.
A mainstream liberal is likely to view the bill positively as a targeted, low-cost measure to reduce period poverty and encourage charitable donations of menstrual supplies.
They will appreciate protections that enable nonprofits and manufacturers to donate surplus or cosmetically imperfect products without fear of routine litigation.
At the same time, they will be attentive to public-health and equity safeguards and may push for stronger language to ensure donated products are safe and that marginalized recipients are not given lower-quality or potentially unsafe items.
A centrist is likely to view the bill as a pragmatic, narrowly tailored policy that promotes private charity while protecting well-meaning donors from litigation.
They will generally like the low-cost nature and limited scope of the liability protection but want clearer boundaries to avoid unintended consequences.
They will be attentive to legal clarity, the definition of "apparently usable," and how this interacts with existing consumer-safety and criminal statutes.
A mainstream conservative will likely appreciate the bill's emphasis on encouraging private charity and reducing litigation risk for donors and nonprofits.
However, they may be uneasy about creating federal carve-outs from civil and criminal liability and could view portions of the bill as potentially limiting accountability for harm.
Many conservatives may prefer solutions that preserve state law authority or that more narrowly limit liability and ensure victims retain clear avenues for redress in non-gross-negligence cases.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrowly targeted, non-fiscal, and includes safety carve-outs, which historically improves chances for bipartisan support and relatively easy enactment if prioritized. Nonetheless, the large majority of standalone bills do not become law absent committee action, floor prioritization, or incorporation into larger vehicles, so the realistic likelihood based only on bill text and typical congressional patterns is modest to moderate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize the bill's benefit for menstrual equity and waste reduction; conservatives emphasize preserving accountability and state…
Content is narrowly targeted, non-fiscal, and includes safety carve-outs, which historically improves chances for bipartisan support and re…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly creates a statutory limitation of liability for donations of menstrual products and includes basic defini…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.