Letters for Jan. 6, 2023

End tampon tax

Tampons, along with other menstrual products, should not be taxed. While many fail to see the impact taxing period supplies has on people who menstruate, these products are essential for 26% of the population. Nobody should be expected to pay extra for basic necessities.

Menstruating is a natural and (in most cases) inevitable part of being a woman. There are 33 states that exempt food from their sales tax, as food is considered a nonluxury necessity. Why is one basic human need recognized while the other is ignored? Washington is one of 23 states that do not tax menstrual products (not including the five states that do not have a statewide sales tax), whereas in Idaho, menstrual products are deemed nonessential goods and are taxed at 6% in the state.

According to the nonprofit PERIOD, 1 in 4 women struggle to afford period products. Without access to these products, these women are at risk for infection, making this a health and human rights issue. Removing the unequal tax burden that is the tampon tax would make period products more accessible to low income women and people who menstruate. Taxing these essentials is a discriminatory act that leaves a shared burden on people everywhere who menstruate, and we must support legislation and politicians who advocate for putting an end to the tampon tax in Idaho and the other 21 states that currently charge sales tax on period products.

Sophie Kuffel

Spokane

Cultivated meat

American leaders should support increased government funding for cultivated meat research in order to help prevent the next pandemic. For those who don’t know, cultivated meat is grown from livestock cells, without slaughter. Since animals are removed from the process, the risk of zoonotic viruses making the jump to humans is reduced.

More than 1 million people have died of COVID-19 in this country alone. Responsible legislators should do everything they can to stop this from happening again. Further public investment in cellular agriculture development is a smart choice from a public health perspective. Of course, there are environmental and animal welfare benefits as well to widespread adoption of cultivated meat.

Jon Hochschartner

Granby, Conn.

Sex education needs update

High school is nuts. I can attest. As a 17-year-old working my way through this incredible calamity we call “public school,” I have experienced firsthand the harm outdated sexual education programs cause.

Currently, there is no such thing as a “standard” sex education curriculum. Each state has vastly different laws surrounding the sex education our children receive in school. Regardless of your political or gender identity, you likely have or will have sex in your lifetime. In fact, around 60% of high school students have sex before they graduate. Thus, it is fundamentally immoral and unacceptable to continue allowing our children to receive biased, inaccurate and coercive education. The only plausible solution is to federally mandate a comprehensive sex education curriculum.

According to Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, “two scientific review papers find abstinence only until marriage programs and policies in the United States are ineffective because they do not delay sexual initiation or reduce sexual risk behaviors.” Every person deserves the right to extensive sexual health information that is inclusive, medically accurate and appropriate in order to make an informed decision about their sex lives.

In order to do this, please support the Real Education and Access for Healthy Youth Act. This would eliminate funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and establish five-year grants for thorough and inclusive sex education curricula. Please do this by contacting your state senator and advocating for our children’s right to a comprehensive sex education.

Emily Gallagher

Spokane

The cost of being homeless

The Catalyst project run by Catholic Charities is now open in the West Hills Neighborhood. About $9.25 million of our tax dollars were used to purchase and rehab the building and then we gifted the building to Catholic Charities. Annual operating cost, also our tax dollars, is $5.5 million for 100 people. That is $55,000 per person per year of our tax dollars going to Catholic Charities. The Spokesman-Review has said that there are as many as 14,000 homeless in Spokane County. If we are to expand the model of the Catalyst project to house all of Camp Hope and the other homeless in our county, the cost is completely unsustainable. 14,000 homeless x $55,000 per person per year is $770 million per year. There are 200,583 employed people in Spokane county. For every working person in Spokane County, that is $3,839 annually to house the homeless. Every waitress, every grocery box boy, every fast food cook would pay $320 per month to house the homeless. Unacceptable. The tax dollars flowing toward this problem are doing one thing … making Catholic Charities and the people in their office very rich. The homeless are just cannon fodder.

Stuart Lee

Spokane