Menstruation as misconduct: How prisons punish people for having their periods

Prisons are primarily designed to confine and control men, which makes managing menstruation extraordinarily difficult, uncomfortable, and often downright dangerous for people inside. Incarcerated people are routinely denied the basic dignity of having the sanitary products and practices they need to care for themselves. When they band together and try to cope by engaging in survival strategies such as sharing supplies, they often fall prey to prison disciplinary systems used to target them for cruel punishment. To make matters worse, those punishments erect even greater barriers to menstrual health and hygiene.

Prison disciplinary systems lay out the wide-ranging rules that govern nearly every aspect of prison life, as well as the power of corrections officers to identify rulebreaking, enforce arbitrary rules, and determine the consequences. While corrections departments justify these far-reaching disciplinary systems as necessary to ensure safety, security, and order by deterring and punishing “misconduct,” in practice, they grant corrections officers wide and virtually unchallenged discretion to turn everyday behaviors into “rule violations” that jeopardize access to important programming and services.

In recent years, more attention has been paid to how people in prison and jail are denied access to menstrual products and are made to suffer for menstruating behind bars. Prisons punish people with periods in a number of ways, including by restricting access to necessary products either by legislation, policy, or by price at the commissary. A 2014 federal investigation of Alabama’s only women’s prison, for example, found that period products, laundry, and clean uniforms were “severely limited” and that staff used supplies to coerce, exploit, and punish incarcerated people. Other reports from carceral facilities across the country highlight how incarcerated people are subjected to assault, withholding of supplies, and humiliation while menstruating, in addition to being forced to live in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. While accounts from people in prison sometimes touch on disciplinary sanctions related to menstruation, prison systems themselves do not collect data on how often people are subject to punishments for period-related infractions. Our analysis is one of the first to systematically explore how prisons operationalize their disciplinary processes to punish people menstruating behind bars.

In this briefing, we analyze prison rules and sanctions from every state, the District of Columbia, and the federal Bureau of Prisons to explain how many of them allow corrections departments to unjustly punish people for the normal bodily process of menstruation. We are making these findings available in two appendix tables at the end of this briefing. While the rules in question are not explicitly about punishing menstruation, they are so broad and vague as to leave open the possibility that they can be used toward those ends. Importantly, the issue is not just that such rules are in place, but that correctional officers are allowed to practically unilaterally interpret and enforce them. In her extensive research into menstruation in prisons, lead author Miriam Vishniac (of the Prison Flow Project) collected invaluable reports from directly impacted people on their experiences of menstruating in prison. These are crucial data points because there is very little data available on this subject, and analyzing policy alone cannot explain how these discipline systems are weaponized against menstruating people. To better understand the reality facing people who menstruate, we include some firsthand reports from Vishniac’s research and other sources. Throughout this briefing, these accounts from incarcerated and formerly-incarcerated people are shared in blockquotes formatted like this:

“They were not getting what they needed and then often being ridiculed or punished for not having adequate equipment to take care of their periods…” – A.K. (Vishniac, 2025)

In Vishniac’s analysis of prison disciplinary policies, we found that at least six types of rules that can be used against people for menstruating:¹

• Damaging property: Rules designed to prevent damage to prison property result in punishing people for bleeding on prison-issued property, using more menstrual products than allotted, and supplementing their limited menstrual products with other materials like toilet paper, paper towels, or rags.
• Maintaining personal hygiene: Rules that mandate tidiness and personal cleanliness can be used against people who are menstruating when they have inadequate menstrual products and limited changes of clothing.
• Contraband: Rules restricting the type of property people can have in their cell, as well as the amount of allowed property that people can have in their cell and how that property is used, can turn basic or makeshift hygiene products into prohibited items.
• Movement: Rules that govern the physical movement of people throughout prisons inevitably impact people who are menstruating by limiting access to bathroom, shower, and laundry facilities.
• Work assignments: Rules requiring participation in work assignments — or impose sanctions for unauthorized absences — unfairly punish people who are menstruating and cannot maintain their usual job performance or tolerate being at work.
• “Feigning” illness: Rules supposedly designed to reduce the unnecessary and expensive use of healthcare resources undoubtedly results in the dismissal of real, severe symptoms experienced in menstruation.

In addition to rules that put people who menstruate in the crosshairs of the disciplinary system, many of the sanctions for breaking them further restrict access to menstrual products,² including:

• Confiscation: A common sanction for being found in possession of “contraband” is confiscation — and it is easy to see how prisons can classify menstrual products as contraband if people have more than the allotted number of products, have traded for menstrual products, or use products acquired in an unauthorized manner.
• Work assignments: Sanctions that result in the loss of work assignment or lowered pay can make it even more challenging for people to afford menstrual products, and requiring additional labor as a punishment can be impossible for people who do not have access to menstrual products or who are experiencing menstruation-related symptoms and medical conditions, including pain and heavy bleeding.
• Fines, fees, restitution and assessed costs: Sanctions requiring monetary payment disproportionately impact women, trans, and nonbinary people, who tend to enter prison with fewer financial resources than men, and who need to spend what little they have on menstrual products from the commissary.
• Loss of privileges: Revoking access to the commissary prohibits people from accessing menstrual products (when it is the sole provider of them) and disallows people from safely supplementing the menstrual products they have when needed. Other privileges are often revoked as well, including visitation, recreation, and programming, all of which are tied to lower rates of prison misconduct and recidivism.
• Restrictive housing: Sanctions that confine people to their cells or restrict access to personal property inevitably limit access to necessary menstrual products when they are otherwise unavailable in restrictive housing or disciplinary segregation.

Basic menstrual care runs afoul of several common prison rules

Prisons typically have many rules, many of which may seem mundane — or even reasonable — that can cause serious issues for people menstruating behind bars.³ Combined with officer discretion, the general lack of oversight in prisons means even the most basic rules can be weaponized. As it stands, research shows that women are more likely to be written up and disciplined for breaking prison rules, and receive disproportionate punishment for minor, subjective infractions like “disrespect.”⁴

While in prison, having a record of rule violations of any kind can exclude people from placement in less-restrictive housing units, program participation, and other services that could benefit them. In addition, pathways to release like parole and clemency proceedings take disciplinary records into consideration, so even the most minor infractions can influence how long someone spends in prison.⁵

Rules governing possession, damage, and misuse of property

Carceral settings often limit access to any and all items for people behind bars. Prison administrators argue that having “too much” property could pose safety risks in small cells (fires, clutter, sanitation), make people targets for theft, or create opportunities for incarcerated people to accrue money or leverage among others.⁶ While there may be some merit to these concerns, the tight restrictions of people’s property offers an additional tool of control and prevents people from having the things they need in the necessary quantities, inflicting real pain on people in response to imagined scenarios.

Damaging state property. Almost every single prison system has a rule about damaging property belonging to the state or the prison system.⁷ However, an inevitable consequence of restricted access to menstrual products like tampons and pads (as well as necessary hygiene products like toilet paper) is inevitably the “damage” (i.e., staining) of property, whether that be prison-issued clothing, bed linens, or upholstered chairs.

“I remember a time when I bled through the pad and I was working at my job. So now the chair has blood all over it. And I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, what am I gonna do?!’” – A.K. (Vishniac, 2025)

“If you bleed all over state property they can charge you for destruction of state property. You know?’” – Ann (Vishniac, 2025)

Crucially, many rules about property explicitly disregard intent, stating that even “negligently” damaging property is a rule violation.⁸ In some prison systems, there are also rules about damaging “personal property” belonging to the individual or another incarcerated person, meaning that even if menstrual blood “damages” or stains property that is not state-owned, people are still at risk of disciplinary action.⁹

Wasting state property. Poor quality menstrual products are typical in prisons and result in people needing to use more pads and tampons. People menstruating in prison must request additional products and take the risk that they will be punished for “wasting” them by running through their allotted tampons and pads too quickly.¹⁰ Even when prisons do provide free menstrual products, people report that the free pads need to be changed more frequently than every 30 minutes on days of heavy flow.¹¹ In a 2023 survey of women involved in the criminal legal system, almost half of respondents reported using menstrual products for longer than they wanted (presumably because of quality issues) while incarcerated, and nearly a quarter of respondents reported negative health outcomes associated with prolonged use and limited supplies.

Misusing or altering state property. Prisons are places of extreme neglect. Incarcerated people often cope by finding ways to meet their own needs however they can — including using makeshift materials as menstrual products. People report using mattress stuffing,¹² dirty rags, socks, pillowcases, toilet paper, and shirts as menstrual products. Using these materials as makeshift menstrual products is an example of “unauthorized” use or using an item for something other than its “original intent or purpose.”¹³ In the same 2023 survey of women, more than one-third of respondents reported using materials other than pads and tampons to stanch menstrual bleeding. Even toilet paper has its limits as a supplement to menstrual products: most facilities only give women as much as they give men, meaning they have about one-third to half as much as they need once menstruation is taken into account (due to changes in bowel movements that often accompany menstruation), even if they don’t need to use toilet paper in lieu of pads or tampons.

“If you are using toilet paper, and you don’t have a sanitary napkin, that is also considered an infraction.’” – Jane (Vishniac, 2025)

Of course, using toilet paper or any other piece of property as a makeshift menstrual pad or tampon is a “misuse” of property and subject to disciplinary write-up and sanction,¹⁴ in addition to the punishment of physical discomfort, humiliation, and the cost of purchasing more toilet paper from the commissary.

Rules about personal hygiene and sanitation

Over thirty prison systems in the country have rules about personal hygiene and sanitation. The most generous interpretation of these rules may be to incentivize keeping shared spaces clean and encouraging sanitary practices like showering and hand-washing. However, the broad subjectivity of these rules allows them to be weaponized against people menstruating in prison, who already lack many of the resources they need to maintain basic hygiene while menstruating.¹⁵

“You see women being forced to free bleed because they don’t have access to anything else, but then they get told that they’re not being hygienic and they get put on lock [disciplinary housing] because they’re free bleeding.” – L.B. (Vishniac, 2025)

The exact time when menstruation begins is not predictable, and not having access to products leads to a situation in which people who bleed on themselves are disciplined, even though it is — inside and outside of prison — unavoidable. People in prison do not have sufficient access to menstrual products at baseline, let alone sufficient access to proactively wear pads and tampons before their menses begin.¹⁶

In addition to rules mandating personal hygiene, most prison systems have a rule violation associated with exposure to “bodily fluids.” Such rules are occasionally accompanied by a definition that restricts the violation to instances of “spitting” or “throwing,” which would obviously exclude unintentional bleeding on furniture or clothing during menstruation. At the same time, such vague rules coupled with practically unchecked officer discretion could — especially in cases where it is not explicitly limited by intentionality — be used to punish people who menstruate. For example, in New York, corrections unions cited concerns around “splashings” if menstrual cups were provided, essentially arguing that access to menstrual products should be limited.

Rules about possessing “contraband”

While most people think of drugs and weapons as “contraband” in prisons, the reality is that the definition is far more expansive. Behind bars, “contraband” also includes permitted items that a person may use for an unintended purpose, give to another person, or have in excess of what’s allowed.¹⁷ In other words, practically anything can become “contraband” if an officer says so, and therefore opens a person to the possibility of punishment.

Excess property. People report serious punishments in prison for trying to be prepared with more than the allowed number of menstrual products, including losing the ability to call their children. In one case, the excess property in question was 30 tampons, which is fewer than are in most boxes of tampons available outside prison.¹⁸

Unauthorized acquisition or exchange of property. As we previously noted, prisons frequently prohibit people from sharing items under the justification that it may create power disparities. Unfortunately, this also means that incarcerated people are not allowed to help each other deal with the facility’s failure or refusal to provide enough menstrual products.¹⁹ Even those few people who can afford additional products from the commissary are not allowed to share those items.

“You could ask somebody [for menstrual products], but if you got caught giving that to one another, even though it was a state-issued product, uh, you’re, you’re gonna get disciplinary ‘cause you’re not allowed to give each other stuff.” – J.T. (Vishniac, 2025)

Incarcerated people are forced to watch others be humiliated and punished just for menstruating, negatively impacting their mental health and emotional well-being — especially the large proportion of incarcerated women, trans people, and nonbinary people who are survivors of abuse.

In addition, because prisons are largely staffed by people who do not menstruate, there is no institutional understanding that people need access to these products at all times and in all locations. People in programming, in treatment for mental and physical conditions, at work, and in disciplinary housing may have restricted access because menstrual products are not included in the list of acceptable items for those locations, making them “contraband” in that specific context.

Rules regulating movement

Nearly all state prison systems and the federal prison system have rules that prohibit people from being “out of place” or in an “unauthorized area.” The physical movement of people in prison is highly regulated and scrutinized, and in the context of menstruation, these rules can seriously restrict the health and hygiene of people menstruating. People who are menstruating require more trips to the bathroom, either to change products²⁰ or due to changes in bowel movements, yet many prisons strictly limit bathroom, laundry, and shower access.²¹

“I had a fibroid on my uterus, so I had a lot of bleeding. But, the pads are so cheap and they don’t absorb well. I would go through three of them a night and still bleed through my clothes onto my sheets. It was so embarrassing and shameful, I would get up early and wash myself, my clothes, and my sheets, even though this was against the rules. I would get in trouble, but I couldn’t just stay with my clothes and sheets like that. It made me feel less than a human being, let alone a woman. Even though we are in prison, we are still women.” – Evelyn (Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2018)

People who are menstruating — and particularly those who experience irregular or heavy flows — not only have to worry about being punished for bleeding on themselves and their bedding, but must also face potential rule violations if they try to clean themselves up in the bathroom or access the laundry facilities without prior authorization.

Rules about work assignments

The majority of prison systems have rules about failing to meet expectations in work assignments²² or about absences from work or programming assignments.²³ Without prior authorization, people in prison cannot miss work assignments without risking a write-up. People can also be disciplined for not meeting job performance and productivity expectations. Outside of prison, almost half of women have taken time off work in the last 12 months due to menstrual symptoms. But in prison, people with work assignments do not get any sick leave. In fact, they are often required to work while sick, unless a healthcare provider officially excuses them.²⁴

“We are not allowed to take days off from work to rest, and we must adhere to a strict daily schedule in which virtually all of our movement is controlled.” – Kelsey Dodson (2025)

“I used to get terrible menstruation cramps! Bad! There was a long time, especially when I first came into the system, that they did not sell ibuprofen. They did not sell it. You could ask the officers for one Tylenol tablet that came in this little mini little envelope, right? And you couldn’t have more than six in your possession. So I would dread when I started my period because the pain would go almost all the way down to my knees. And I would have to work out in the heat.” – J.T. (Vishniac, 2025)

It’s unclear how people can access menstrual products while at work or required programming because incarcerated people are not able to carry property with them from their housing unit. Incarcerated people may be forced into a disciplinary catch-22: attend mandatory programming and face possible sanction for bleeding on themselves, or refuse to attend and be sanctioned for being absent or “out of place.”

Rules against “feigning” illness

More than one-third of all prison systems have rules condemning “faking” or “feigning” illness or injury.²⁵ These rules reflect a disturbing assumption by prison systems, correctional healthcare providers, and correctional staff that people in prison routinely lie about their healthcare needs in an effort to better their circumstances by, for example, avoiding work assignments, transfers to a different facility or new cell, etc. This presumption of ‘malingering’ can have dire consequences for incarcerated people in general, but more specifically among menstruating people:

“The nurses are just like, ‘You’re trying to get something out of us. We don’t wanna do the paperwork.’ And they make it challenging for people to get what they need and they never look at the source of the problem.” – S.B. (Vishniac, 2025)

Even though it is widely understood that menstruating people experience serious and painful cramps, it’s often dismissed or overlooked inside and outside of the carceral context.²⁶

Sanctions for rulebreaking further restrict access to menstrual products

In prison disciplinary systems, rule violations are punished based on the severity classification of the offense. Lower-level infractions may result in warnings, reprimands, probation, “agreements” or informal resolutions, and other more lenient responses.²⁷ The rules discussed above are considered lower-level infractions in most prison systems, but even this involves equating different types of rulebreaking that are in no way comparable.²⁸

In addition, most prison systems will consider repeated rule violations as a higher level of violation (and therefore subject to more severe sanctions).²⁹ Given that menstruation occurs approximately every month, menstruation-related rule violations are likely to occur repeatedly, especially for people who experience particularly heavy flow, painful cramps, or irregular menstruation. While correctional leaders often frame repeatedly breaking certain rules as evidence of antisocial behavior, it can also be interpreted as a sign of rules that are impossible to follow in a system where constant punishment and humiliation is the point.

As we previously mentioned, women, trans, and nonbinary people are more likely than men to be written up and disciplined for breaking prison rules: eight in ten women who reported being written up for a violation in the past year also reported receiving some form of disciplinary action.³⁰ These harsh, punitive sanctions, which include solitary confinement and restrictive housing,³¹ loss of good time credits,³² fines and fees,³³ forced labor,³⁴ and lost access to programming³⁵ and visitation,³⁶ are destabilizing and traumatizing. But what’s important to understand here is that many sanctions actually further restrict access to menstrual products, leading to a dangerous cycle of violations and punishments that inhibit access to hygiene products.

Confiscation of property

At least 20 state prison systems and the federal Bureau of Prisons have sanctions on the books that include “confiscation,” “loss of authorized property,” “dispose of property,” or “loss of personal property.”³⁷ These sanctions are primarily associated with contraband-related rule violations, but when the “contraband” in question are menstrual products, incarcerated people are left without enough supplies as their period approaches.

“If you had more than [the allotted number of pads] you got a disciplinary case for it. So the women that, that bled heavily, you know […] they would hoard those things. And they would get them confiscated.’” – J.T. (Vishniac, 2025)

Carla, a formerly incarcerated woman, described cell searches and arguing with prison staff: “‘Wait a minute. I’m just getting ready to bleed. Why are you taking it?’ ‘Why do you have excess?’ ‘Well, I’m a heavy bleeder.’ You know? And, they just, they would take it.” (Vishniac, 2025)

In many places, personal property — including authorized property — can be confiscated in response to a rule violation (even rule violations not related to that personal property).³⁸ And while some states prohibit the confiscation of “personal hygiene items,”³⁹ menstrual products are frequently left out of the definition of those items.

Work-related sanctions

More than three-quarters of prison systems have sanctions that include “extra duty” or “extra work assignment,”⁴⁰ and at least twenty prison systems — including the federal Bureau of Prisons — have sanctions that result in “change or loss of work assignment” or “work without pay.”⁴¹ Losing a job or being punished with unpaid labor can also mean incarcerated menstruators are left unable to purchase the items they need from the commissary. Additional labor can be a problem for the same people who struggle to perform heavy labor without access to tampons or who struggle with pain and other menstruation-related conditions. On top of the physical discomfort and exhaustion, jobs used as punishment may require significant movement, meaning the need for additional menstrual products could be even greater due to the impact of exercise on menstrual flow.

Fines, fees, restitution, and assessed costs

Almost every prison system imposes financial sanctions like fines, fees, restitution, or assessed costs.⁴² In at least 16 prison systems, we found policies specifically referencing fines and/or fees as punishment when someone is found or pleads guilty to a disciplinary violation. In many cases, the severity classification determines the amount of the fine, but in other cases there is a “flat” charge. In either case, charging fines means that some of the most innocuous behaviors — like making “loud or disturbing noises” in Kansas prisons — have a price tag. Even fines that may seem small to people on the outside — like the $15 maximum fine for a low-level rule violation in Oregon — can be devastating in a situation where people have extremely limited access to money and, when they are paid for their labor, make mere pennies per hour. Sanctions can also include “restitution,”⁴³ “repayment for damages,”⁴⁴ and “forfeiture of cash monies.”⁴⁵ And because women, transgender, and nonbinary people tend to enter prison with fewer resources than their cisgendered men counterparts, financial sanctions are likely far more significant for them.⁴⁶ Ultimately, punishing people with fines, restitution, and assessed costs leaves them with less money for the basic essentials, including menstrual products at the commissary:

“To put in perspective now, to think that a box of pads or tampons could cost my income for how many days? Like, there’s no way. You know, it’s like buying tampon boxes for hundreds of dollars a box.” – A.K. (Vishniac, 2025)

Loss of privileges

Almost all prison systems limit privileges as a punishment for rulebreaking, and at least 32 prison systems have sanctions that explicitly restrict access to the commissary (including loss of commissary while in disciplinary restriction).⁴⁷ Some of these sanctions include caveats for “personal hygiene items,” but again, they often do not define what is considered a “personal hygiene item.”⁴⁸ We found only three state prison systems that specify that the loss of commissary privileges must not restrict access to menstrual products in their sanctions,⁴⁹ while an additional eleven state prisons systems prohibit restrictions on the more general category of “hygiene” or “essential” items, without defining those terms to include menstrual products. When all basic necessities are dispensed through the commissary, lost access can easily lead to a cycle of rule violations as people subsequently barter for menstrual products, damage state property, or are seen as “unhygienic.” The loss of other privileges (visitation, phone calls, exercise and recreation, programming)⁵⁰ can also have a serious impact on people’s lives and wellbeing in prison, as visitation can reduce prison misconduct and recidivism, exercise and recreation can improve physical health, and educational programming is associated with reduced recidivism.

Restrictive housing, solitary confinement, and movement restrictions

Every prison system — except Arizona — has some sort of restrictive housing available as a punishment for rulebreaking. This includes disciplinary detention, confinement to cell, or other types of restrictive housing.⁵¹ In some cases, even low-level rule violations can lead to such placements: in Iowa, for example, a “minor” rule violation like “unsatisfactory work performance” or “minor insolence (abusive language, cursing, obscene language)” can result in restriction to the cell.

“When I was in SHU [special housing unit], every day, you’re not allowed to keep anything in your cell. So every morning they have something called ‘go-around’ and if you need pads that day they will give you two in the morning go-round. That’s it. That’s all you have for the whole day. And if you miss the go-round, you can’t ask them for pads later in the day.” – S.B. (Vishniac, 2025)

When someone is confined to disciplinary housing or their quarters, they tend to also lose access to the commissary and the normal distribution of items like menstrual products. Only six state prison systems have language on the books explicitly requiring access to menstrual products while in restrictive housing.⁵²

Conclusion

There is no “safety and security” interest in denying people the basic sanitary products they need to manage normal bodily functions. In all of our research — combing through state statutes, department policies, and facility handbooks — we found no documentation explaining how exactly menstrual products could threaten safety. When pressed on this issue, corrections officials have been unable to provide any further clarity.

Punishing people for menstruating is cruel, dehumanizing, and unnecessary. This practice damages their self-esteem and mental well-being, triggering serious consequences both in prison and once released. As we have said, survival practices like sharing hygiene products is prohibited, in-part, due to a supposed fear of creating power imbalances inside. But this overlooks the simple fact that these practices create other devastating power imbalances: from 2011 to 2021, there were at least five substantiated incidents of correctional staff using their power over access to menstrual products to abuse people in their custody.⁵³ It is not enough just to enact laws that make pads and tampons free in prison or change the rules being used to discipline incarcerated menstruators:

“Because, if you have these laws, the people that work at the prisons always get the last say and can just overpower them.” – L.B. (Vishniac, 2025)

Effectively ending the mistreatment of those who menstruate in correctional facilities also requires oversight and accountability of prisons, and an end to mass criminalization of women and other menstruating people.