Taxpayers would fund tampons and menstrual pads for Michigan student bathrooms under a new bill.

House Bill 6168, introduced by Rep. Mai Xiong, D-Warren on Nov. 26, aims to have the state reimburse school districts for feminine hygiene products in student bathrooms.

The bill would direct the state to reimburse school districts for at least 50% of the cost of providing tampons and menstrual pads. It says that any district seeking reimbursement must place the items in a “bathroom designated for use by females,” as well as a “bathroom designated for use by males or both males and females.”

One observer of public schools panned the idea. “This legislation represents yet another example of lawmakers directing taxpayer dollars to services that will have no impact on student learning outcomes,” said Molly Macek, education policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

The bill was assigned to the House Appropriations Committee during the lame-duck session, when there is a rush to pass bills before the term expires.

Democratic lawmakers should focus on other policies, said Rep. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, R-Midland.

“After the result of last month’s election, you would hope Michigan Democrats would be self-aware enough to realize that taxpayer-funded tampons in the boys’ bathrooms is both bad policy and very unpopular, but it appears they’ve yet to recognize that,” Schuette, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said in an email to Michigan Capitol Confidential.

“I would hope in our final days of lame duck, we work to responsibly fund our roads, education and public safety, not cater to far-left culture wars,” he said.

Michigan Capitol Confidential previously reported on one parent’s lawsuit against her school district after officials rebuffed her request to view her student’s gender curriculum.

Under HB 6168, the state would allot $10 million for reimbursement purpose, which districts could obtain by submitting an application. Districts would be paid back at least half their cost, but a district would receive extra if more than half its students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals through the federal school lunch program.

Xiong did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Legislation in the lame-duck session would increase the fees hunters and anglers must pay for state-required licenses, which would be set on a path for automatic increases. House Bill 6229, introduced by Rep. Amos O’Neal, D-Saginaw, would affect a wide range of activities and require some teenage anglers to get a license for the first time.

The bill would increase the fee for a resident combination hunting and fishing license from $75 to $113. The fee for an antlerless deer license would increase from $20 to $30, and anyone seeking one of these or other game licenses would also face increased application fees.

Nonresidents also would have to pay more. For example, a seven-day limited small game license, currently $80, would cost $120.

Some anglers would face a new licensing requirement. While 16-year-olds do not need a fishing license now, they would have to get one under HB 6229, which lowers the age requirement for a license from 17 to 16.

The most significant change in the bill, however, might be that it would put fee increases on automatic pilot, removing the need for legislators to take a public vote. Instead, the state treasurer would increase fees by an amount equal to the Consumer Price Index, a common measure of inflation.

Hunters provide over $95 million for wildlife conservation through license purchases and fees on related equipment, according to the Michigan Wildlife Council, which adds that hunting supports 171,000 jobs.

The number of hunters in Michigan has seen a 32% decline since 1995, according to the state Department of Natural Resources. An increase in fees could discourage some people from hunting, which could lead to the state having too many wildlife, leading to more frequent deer-vehicle crashes and other ill effects.

The bill would increase the following license fees for state residents:

• All-species fishing (from $25 to $38)
• Wild turkey (from $15 to $23)
• Bear (from $25 to $38)
• Waterfowl (from $12 to $18)
• Pheasant (from $25 to $38)
• Elk (from $100 to $150).

The bill would also increase the amount the state must spend from various licenses on habitats and game health. Financial support for habitat and other work related to wild turkeys, for example, would increase from $9.50 to $14.00.

The fee increase aims to fund conservation efforts, according to O’Neal.

“In working with the Department, we do anticipate some level resistance to any level of a license fee increase,” O’Neal told Michigan Capitol Confidential in an email. “However, that does not change the need to properly fund conservation efforts in the State of Michigan. License fees have not been raised in over a decade, while the cost of providing services has increased drastically due to inflation.”

The state should use existing revenue better, said a Republican lawmaker.

“Instead of raising costs even more, we should be making it easier for people to enjoy the great outdoors,” Rep. Dave Prestin, R-Cedar River, told CapCon in an email.

“If the DNR wants to fund improvements, they should focus on delivering better services and cutting inefficiencies, not sneaking revenue grabs past voters."