This Article identifies and analyzes the category of state and private
regulation that is invisible and subordinates women and other menstruators in
ways that impact their privacy, liberty, and equality. Because this category
of regulation is pervasive, bringing it to light is critical for considering how
best to curb its harm. This Article considers potential legal strategies to
counter such menstruation regulation and argues that Dobbs v. Jackson
Women’s Health Organization offers some promise—but more cause for
pessimism—regarding the U.S. Constitution’s power to do so. This Article
therefore explains how subconstitutional law offers greater potential, while
cautioning that political science research shows progressive law reform can
be limited by a misogynistic strategy, that is, the political strategy of
maintaining patriarchal order and female gender roles.
