Maryland HB 941 was a 2026 bill that would have required every public restroom in a state or local government building to stock menstrual hygiene products alongside soap, toilet paper, and paper towels. It applied to men’s and women’s restrooms alike, drew sharp opposition under the nickname “Tampons for Timmy,” and died in the House of Delegates without a final floor vote before the session adjourned.
What the Bill Would Have Required
Formally titled “Public Health – Public Buildings – Hygiene Products,” HB 941 directed that every public restroom maintain an adequate supply of hand soap, toilet paper, towels or other hand-drying devices, water, waste containers, and menstrual hygiene products. The bill defined menstrual hygiene products as “appropriately sized tampons, sanitary napkins, and sanitary pads.”1Maryland General Assembly. HB 941 Bill Text
The mandate reached any restroom in a building owned, leased, or operated by the State of Maryland or any political subdivision. That included state office buildings, public transit terminals and stations funded with public money, and public parks and recreation centers. Opponents noted the language would also cover venues like M&T Bank Stadium, Camden Yards, and BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport.2WBAL-TV. Bill Requiring Tampons in Mens and Womens Bathrooms Gets Mixed Reaction K-12 schools were excluded, and an amendment carved out restrooms with only composting or pit toilets.3Maryland General Assembly. HB 941 Amendment 673421/1
Had it passed, the law would have taken effect October 1, 2026. There was no phase-in schedule and no agency was given rulemaking authority, so compliance would have been expected from day one.1Maryland General Assembly. HB 941 Bill Text
Who Introduced It and How Far It Got
Delegate Terri L. Hill, a Democrat representing District 12A in Howard County, introduced HB 941 on February 5, 2026, with more than a dozen Democratic co-sponsors.4Maryland General Assembly. Delegate Terri L. Hill Testimony The House Government, Labor, and Elections Committee heard the bill on March 4 and reported it favorably with amendments on March 16. The full House adopted the amendment and passed the bill on second reading on March 17.5Maryland General Assembly. HB 941 Legislation Details
Third reading never happened. On March 18, 2026, the House adopted a motion by Delegate Kerr placing HB 941 on special order, a procedural move that pulled it from the regular calendar. Delegate Mark Fisher told reporters the designation meant the bill could be brought back at any time, but the politics had turned.6Southern Maryland News. Personal Hygiene Bill Placed on Special Order Due to Controversy Delegate Kathy Szeliga said it was “likely” the bill would not proceed. The legislative record shows no further action, and the session adjourned on April 13 without the bill ever reaching the Senate.5Maryland General Assembly. HB 941 Legislation Details
Why It Stalled
Two forces converged against the bill: a political campaign built around its application to men’s restrooms, and an open-ended fiscal picture.
Szeliga, a Baltimore County Republican and member of the House Republican Freedom Caucus, called the legislation “very, very expensive” and “totally unnecessary,” describing it as “misplaced priorities” during a state budget deficit.7WFMD. Maryland Dems Mocked for Prioritizing Tampons in Mens Bathrooms Amid State Deficit She also questioned how the “appropriately sized” standard would be defined. The Freedom Caucus coined the nickname “Tampons for Timmy,” which spread through conservative media. Szeliga said the label was meant to draw attention to the men’s room requirement and tied it to broader debates about transgender women using men’s facilities.2WBAL-TV. Bill Requiring Tampons in Mens and Womens Bathrooms Gets Mixed Reaction The Washington Times reported that public backlash after media coverage effectively halted the bill’s progress following second reading.8Washington Times. Tampon Dispensers in Maryland Mens Rooms: Inside HB 941 Supporters framed the bill around access and dignity, arguing menstrual products belong among basic restroom supplies and would serve anyone who menstruates regardless of which restroom they use.
The Department of Legislative Services concluded a reliable statewide cost estimate was “not feasible” because no data existed on which restrooms already stocked the products and the bill did not define “adequate supply.” The fiscal note warned that state and local expenditures could rise “potentially significantly” starting in fiscal year 2027.9Maryland General Assembly. HB 941 Fiscal and Policy Note Agency projections varied widely. The Department of Natural Resources estimated nearly $400,000 in startup costs at roughly $600 per dispenser, plus restocking. The Maryland State Police estimated $53,200 in first-year costs across 40 public-access locations. The Department of General Services projected little impact because its rental agreements already required landlords to stock the items.10Maryland General Assembly. Maryland State Police Fiscal Testimony The fiscal note also flagged a staffing problem: if “adequate supply” meant restrooms could never run out, agencies might need more custodial workers to keep products continuously stocked.
What Maryland Law Still Requires
With HB 941 dead, Maryland’s existing menstrual product mandates remain unchanged. Chapters 705 and 706 of 2021 require all public schools to provide free menstrual products through dispensers in women’s restrooms. Middle and high schools had to install dispensers in at least two restrooms by October 2022 and in all women’s restrooms by August 2025. Elementary schools were required to equip at least one restroom by October 2022. The state appropriated $500,000 in fiscal year 2023 to reimburse county school boards for installation.11New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Maryland Education Code § 7-449 A separate 2026 bill, HB 541, clarified that schools must “regularly restock” those dispensers.12Maryland General Assembly. HB 541 Fiscal and Policy Note Maryland also requires menstrual products in homeless shelters and correctional facilities.10Maryland General Assembly. Maryland State Police Fiscal Testimony The broader mandate for all state and local government buildings that HB 941 would have added did not become law.