Menstrual Equity, Carceral Control, and the Limits of Reform

Background and Purpose: This paper examines California Assembly Bill 1810 as a reproductive justice policy reform in carceral settings. Reproductive justice frameworks emphasize bodily autonomy, dignity, and the material conditions necessary to care for oneself and one’s family. In carceral institutions, however, access to basic reproductive health needs is often shaped by surveillance, scarcity, and institutional control. Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1810 established a statutory right to menstrual products in custody and removed request-based barriers to access. This paper considers both the significance of this reform and its limits within coercive institutional environments.

Methods: Using critical policy analysis, this paper examines the language, assumptions, and implications of AB 1810 through the lens of reproductive justice scholarship and critical work on carceral governance. The analysis situates the legislation within broader conversations about menstrual equity, carceral health, and reformist interventions in punitive systems. Particular attention is given to the relationship between statutory rights, institutional implementation, and conditions of confinement.

Findings: The analysis suggests that AB 1810 marks an important shift by recognizing access to menstrual products as a basic right rather than a privilege contingent on request, discretion, or gatekeeping. The law reflects an important policy acknowledgment that menstrual care is part of health, dignity, and bodily autonomy. At the same time, the paper argues that rights-based reforms in carceral settings remain constrained by the very institutions through which they are implemented. Although such reforms may improve access to basic bodily care, they do not by themselves undo broader conditions of surveillance, dependency, punishment, and gendered control that shape reproductive life in custody. As a result, the promise of reform may be limited by uneven implementation and by the structural realities of carceral power.

Conclusions and Implications: AB 1810 provides a useful case for examining the tensions between reform and transformation in reproductive justice work. This paper highlights the value of policy change while cautioning against treating statutory reform as sufficient to secure dignity, autonomy, or health equity in carceral settings. Implications are discussed for reproductive justice advocacy, social work, and future research on implementation, lived experience, and the possibilities and limits of institutional reform.