Menopause Workplace Laws by State: 2026 Tracker

As of July 31, 2026, Rhode Island is the only U.S. state with an enacted, currently effective statute that expressly names menopause and requires employers to provide reasonable workplace accommodation. We reviewed all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Thirteen of those 51 jurisdictions have taken some kind of express menopause workplace action. Exactly one has produced a current, enforceable statewide accommodation right. Illinois passed a bill on May 28, 2026 and sent it to the governor on June 26; it was still awaiting action at our verification date. Virginia passed two companion bills and the governor vetoed them on May 19, 2026.

The honest answer to “menopause workplace laws by state” is not a map with a growing number of shaded states. It is a ladder, and almost everything on it sits below the top rung.

The second half matters just as much: New Jersey has no enacted menopause statute, yet its civil-rights agency has published an express position that existing state law requires workplace accommodation for qualifying perimenopause and menopause needs. Activity, guidance, a pending bill, an executive order, a local ordinance, and a statewide statute are not interchangeable.

One of the 51 jurisdictions reviewed has an enacted and effective statewide statute expressly naming menopause and requiring workplace accommodation. Thirteen have express statewide workplace activity of some kind, while 38 had no explicit statewide menopause workplace measure located under the published method as of July 31, 2026.

These are mutually exclusive primary-status buckets. New Jersey, for example, also has pending bills, but it is counted under official existing-law guidance because that is the strongest current statewide action there. The count of states with any pending express bill is therefore six: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

Two numbers do most of the work here. One state has an enforceable statewide menopause accommodation statute. Thirteen jurisdictions have express statewide workplace activity of some kind. The distance between those two numbers is the clearest snapshot of where this area of law actually stands.

One more number matters for employer coverage: Rhode Island’s fair-employment framework reaches employers with four or more employees. The federal thresholds are not one uniform “floor”: Title VII, the ADA, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act generally use 15 employees; the ADEA uses 20; and FMLA coverage and employee eligibility use a separate, more detailed test.

This tracker shows where an official instrument expressly names menopause or perimenopause in an employment context, what legal form the action took, how far it advanced, and whether it is operative. It does not say that workers in every unshaded jurisdiction have no protection, and it does not decide how general discrimination, disability, leave, collective-bargaining, or local law applies to individual facts.

It shows which jurisdictions put menopause or perimenopause into a workplace instrument, how far each measure got, and whether it creates a current right, a government directive, an agency interpretation, a pending proposal, or no enforceable change.

It does not showthat workers in the other 38 jurisdictions have no protection. A jurisdiction appearing in the “no explicit measure located” row means we found no menopause-specific statewide workplace instrument under the method described below. It does not mean no sex, age, disability, pregnancy, leave, collective-bargaining, employer-policy, or local-law theory can apply.

It also does not decide whether a particular symptom qualifies as a disability, predict whether a pending bill will pass, or substitute for legal advice. This page reports what official instruments say and how they were classified. How an agency or court applies those instruments to a specific set of facts is a different question.

As of July 31, 2026, Rhode Island is the only state with an enacted, effective statute that expressly names menopause and requires reasonable workplace accommodation. Illinois had passed a comparable accommodation bill that was still awaiting the governor; Washington and Michigan had enacted non-private-right government action; New Jersey had official existing-law guidance; and Philadelphia had enacted a local ordinance scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.

Here is every jurisdiction we reviewed.

Rhode Island law requires employers covered by the state fair-employment framework—generally those with four or more employees—to reasonably accommodate a prospective employee’s or employee’s condition related to menopause unless the employer proves undue hardship. The statute also restricts forced leave, protects employment opportunities when accommodation is refused, creates notice duties, and makes aiding or obstructing violations unlawful. It took effect June 24, 2025.

We read the enacted text and current codification of R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-7.4 rather than relying on summaries. Several things in it are not what the most repeated descriptions imply.

What the law does.It amends the accommodation section that had covered pregnancy and childbirth by inserting menopause. The operative phrase is “pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, or a related medical condition.” The definition of “related conditions” expressly includes the need to manage the effects of vasomotor symptoms.

Five statutory rules follow:

1. Accommodate. Refusing to reasonably accommodate a condition related to menopause is an unlawful employment practice unless the employer demonstrates undue hardship.
2. Do not force leave when another accommodation works. The statute bars requiring leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.
3. Do not deny employment opportunities because accommodation was refused. That denial is separately listed as an unlawful employment practice.
4. Give notice. Employers must post notice, give it to new employees at the start of employment, and give it within ten days to an employee who notifies the employer of her menopause.
5. Do not aid, obstruct, coerce, or attempt a violation. The section expressly reaches those acts too.

The accommodation duty does not require a disability finding. The trigger in § 28-5-7.4 is a condition related to menopause, not proof that the employee meets the ADA definition of disability.

The employer bears the undue-hardship burden.The statute also says that when an employer provides—or would be required to provide—a similar accommodation to another class of employees, that fact creates a rebuttable presumption that the requested accommodation does not impose an undue hardship.

Illinois HB 5284 passed both chambers on May 28, 2026 and was sent to the governor on June 26. It was still listed as “Sent to the Governor” on July 31, so it was not law at the verification cutoff. A Senate floor amendment removed the House version’s standalone menopause discrimination and accommodation provisions and routed the final workplace protection through the Illinois Human Rights Act’s pregnancy-accommodation framework.

Illinois is the most time-sensitive row in this tracker, and the bill that passed is not the bill that was introduced.

As introduced and as passed by the Houseon April 17, 2026, by 71–32, HB 5284 defined a “menopause-related condition” to include perimenopause, menopause, and associated medical or symptomatic conditions. The House version made discrimination or refusal of reasonable accommodation because of a menopause-related condition a civil-rights violation and named flexible schedules, temperature control, private rest space, remote work, and light duty as possible accommodations.

Senate Floor Amendment No. 4, adopted May 21, replaced that structure. The official synopsis says the amendment removed menopause-related conditions from the definition of unlawful discrimination, removed the standalone civil-rights violation for menopause discrimination or failure to accommodate, and instead:

• retained a definition of “menopause-related condition”;
• amended the definition of “pregnancy” to include menopause-related conditions;
• added flexible scheduling or modified work hours and temperature- or climate-adjusted workspace to the pregnancy-accommodation list; and
• required the state notice to explain that pregnancy accommodation includes menopause-related conditions.

The Senate passed the amended bill 51–4. The House concurred 78–33 on May 28. If enacted, the workplace provisions would take effect January 1, 2027; the specified insurance changes would take effect January 1, 2028.

The practical point is simple: a headline based on the House version overstates the enrolled bill. The final text uses an accommodation pathway through the pregnancy definition; it does not make menopause a freestanding protected class under the Illinois Human Rights Act.

Primary source: Illinois General Assembly, HB 5284 status, amendment synopses, votes, and enrolled text. Verified July 31, 2026.

Six states had pending express menopause workplace bills at the verification cutoff: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. California AB 1940 had passed the Assembly, New York S7495-A had passed the Senate, and the remaining identified measures had not passed a full legislature. None creates an enforceable right unless it is enacted and its effective date arrives.

“Pending” hides major differences. A bill filed in committee and a bill that has passed a chamber are both pending, but they are not at the same point.

California’s AB 1940 was the furthest-advanced pending state bill in this review that had not passed both chambers. The June 23 amended text would add perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause, and related medical conditions to the definition of sexunder the Fair Employment and Housing Act. FEHA’s employer definition generally reaches those regularly employing five or more people.

The current text would also require the Civil Rights Department to update the mandatory workplace poster by July 1, 2027 and direct the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls to conduct public education and coordination work. The Assembly passed it 61–9 on May 26. A Senate committee voted 4–0 to send it forward on July 1, and it was in Senate Appropriations at the verification cutoff.

North Carolina’s S 912 is titled Menopause Omnibus. Part IV is the Menopause Nondiscrimination Act. It would apply to employers with four or more employees and would create accommodation, forced-leave, opportunity, notice, and related protections for conditions tied to pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, or related medical conditions.

Its most distinctive drafting feature is the accommodation section. The bill organizes examples by the type of work involved: seven examples for physically demanding work, seven for intellectually demanding work, and five for emotionally demanding work. No other measure in this review used that same job-type structure.

The bill was re-referred to Senate Appropriations/Base Budget on April 30 and had not been enacted.

We located five New York pairs:

1. A5436-B/S10265 would add menstrual-related, perimenopausal-related, and menopausal-related conditions to the state reasonable-accommodation provision and require notices and informational material.
2. A1940/S3908 proposes paid leave. Its title and summary say four days, while the controlling text says an additional four days a month during a 52-week calendar period.
3. A10296/S9247 proposes five days in a 12-month period.
4. A10270/S9244 contains a separate leave structure whose controlling text says five days a month. Its title, text, and explanatory material should not be treated as interchangeable.
5. S7495-A/A8542-A, the Menopause Awareness Improvement Act, would require a workforce-impact study and related awareness work. The Senate passed S7495-A 61–0 on June 2 and delivered it to the Assembly.

The five pairs are different proposals, not five versions of the same right. Anyone reporting a leave amount should quote the controlling bill text, not only the title or summary.

Massachusetts H.5303 is a new omnibus draft assembled from earlier bills. It was referred to House Ways and Means on July 23, 2026.

New Jersey A4487 and S3779would add express menopause-related employment protections. The state’s current practical significance comes from agency guidance under existing law, discussed below.

Pennsylvania HB 2135remained pending statewide. Philadelphia’s separate ordinance is already enacted but applies only within the city and does not take effect until January 1, 2027.

Virginia’s companion bills passed both chambers and were vetoed May 19, 2026. Maryland HB 536 passed the House but was not enacted before adjournment, and Connecticut SB 353 reached the Senate calendar without enactment. Those final statuses supersede earlier coverage describing the measures as pending or awaiting signature.

Virginia HB 1173 and SB 258 would have added menopause and perimenopause to the Virginia Human Rights Act, prohibited specified discrimination, required accommodation and notices, limited forced leave, and required a workforce report.

The governor proposed amendments that would have removed the workplace accommodation structure and substituted a study. The General Assembly did not adopt those recommendations, and the governor vetoed both companion bills on May 19, 2026.

The veto announcement said workers experiencing menopause or perimenopause were already protected through existing age and gender provisions. That was the governor’s stated rationale for the veto; it was not a court holding that resolves every claim under the Virginia Human Rights Act.

Maryland HB 536would have prohibited menopause-related discrimination and required accommodation. The House passed it 105–19 on March 5. It received a Senate hearing March 25 but was not enacted before the April 13 adjournment.

Connecticut SB 353 would have required reasonable accommodation for menopause-related needs and directed development of a model policy. It was placed on the Senate calendar April 2 and was not enacted in the 2026 session. Connecticut enacted a separate menopause health-care measure; that is not a workplace-rights law and is not counted here.

No federal employment statute expressly names menopause as a protected category or creates an automatic menopause accommodation right. Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, the FMLA, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and general workplace-safety rules can matter to particular facts, but each has its own trigger, scope, and remedy. A federal Menopausal Workers’ Fairness Act was introduced July 14, 2026 and was not enacted at the verification cutoff.

The U.S. Department of Labor Women’s Bureau states that federal law does not explicitly protect workers from discrimination based on menstruation or menopause. It then identifies laws that may apply in individual cases.

The PWFA covers known limitations “related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s final rule, effective June 18, 2024, interprets that language broadly and gives examples including menstruation, infertility, lactation, endometriosis, and miscarriage. The rule does not expressly list menopause.

That leaves no sound basis for either categorical answer—“the PWFA always covers menopause” or “the PWFA can never cover menopause.” A worker would need the required connection between the known limitation and pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition under the statute and rule.

Then-Commissioner Andrea Lucas voted against the final rule and argued that the Commission had extended the statute too far into conditions of the reproductive system. Her dissenting statement is an official record of her view, not the controlling rule. The EEOC later stated that the chair’s office could not unilaterally rescind or modify the final rule.

The Department of Labor fact sheet cites OSHA sanitation rules for general industry, construction, maritime, and agricultural work. Those rules can establish baseline duties involving toilets, handwashing facilities, and potable water in covered settings.

They should not be described as a menopause accommodation law. They apply independently of menopause and do not answer whether a worker is entitled to a modified schedule, temperature control, remote work, additional breaks beyond the governing rule, or another individualized adjustment.

H.R. 9671 was introduced July 14, 2026 by Representatives Debbie Dingell and Yvette Clarke. As introduced, it would apply to covered employers with 15 or more employees and create a standalone reasonable-accommodation right for known limitations tied to menopause or the menopause transition, absent undue hardship.

The bill would also restrict forced leave when another accommodation works, address confidentiality of medical information, and direct the EEOC to issue regulations. It had not been enacted at the verification cutoff and created no current compliance duty.

General sex, age, disability, pregnancy-accommodation, and leave laws may apply even where no statute expressly names menopause. New Jersey supplies the clearest official state example located in this review: its Division on Civil Rights says the state Law Against Discrimination requires reasonable accommodation for qualifying perimenopause and menopause needs through the law’s pregnancy-related accommodation provisions. That is an agency interpretation, not an enacted menopause statute or a court holding.

New Jersey has no enacted menopause statute. Its express bills are pending. But the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has published a dedicated brief stating that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation so an employee can maintain her health while experiencing covered pregnancy-related conditions, and it expressly includes perimenopause and menopause in that guidance.

Read that beside Rhode Island and Illinois. Rhode Island amended an existing pregnancy-and-childbirth accommodation section to add menopause. The final Illinois bill would place menopause-related conditions inside its definition of pregnancy for accommodation purposes. New Jersey’s enforcement agency reached an accommodation position through its interpretation of existing state law without waiting for a new menopause statute.

That does not make the three legal paths identical:

• Rhode Island has enacted statutory text expressly naming menopause.
• Illinois had passed a bill but it was not law at the cutoff.
• New Jersey has official agency guidance under existing law, which can guide enforcement but does not bind a court the way enacted text does.

The better research question is therefore not only “Does my state have a menopause law?” It is also: Does existing state law create an accommodation route, and has the legislature, enforcing agency, or a court said menopause is inside it?

The same “menopause workplace law” headline can describe very different legal mechanisms. This review identified six primary vehicles: expanding an accommodation statute, adding a protected basis, expanding the definition of sex, creating a standalone act, interpreting existing law through agency guidance, and directing public-sector policy or employer recommendations. The vehicle determines whether the result is a discrimination claim, an accommodation duty, guidance only, or no private right at all.

Why this is not academic: Rhode Island’s statute and Virginia’s vetoed bills were all described as menopause workplace legislation, but they did not use the same mechanism. Illinois moved from a freestanding civil-rights structure in the House version to an accommodation route through the pregnancy definition in the enrolled bill. California would use the definition of sex. North Carolina would create a new article. Those choices change the claim, trigger, remedy, and employer analysis.

The instruments do not share one standard accommodation list. Rhode Island’s binding statute uses a non-exhaustive list inherited from its pregnancy-accommodation framework; Illinois expressly names schedule and temperature adjustments in a bill awaiting the governor; North Carolina proposes job-type-specific examples; and Philadelphia’s certified ordinance names no specific accommodation examples at all. Guidance documents may offer practical ideas without making each idea legally mandatory.

Three points are easy to miss.

Temperature control is not enumerated in Rhode Island’s list. The statute expressly mentions vasomotor symptoms and uses a non-exhaustive accommodation definition, so temperature control can be requested and evaluated under the statutory standard. The enacted text does not name it.

Philadelphia’s ordinance does not contain the six-item list repeated in some summaries. The certified text creates a reasonable-accommodation rule but does not enumerate breaks, temperature control, remote work, restroom access, dress-code flexibility, or manual-labor assistance.

The federal practice list is broader than the federal legal mandate. A useful suggestion in agency guidance is not automatically a required accommodation in every workplace.

Philadelphia has the only enacted local menopause workplace ordinance located in this review. It was signed December 3, 2025, takes effect January 1, 2027, and adds menstruation, perimenopause, and menopause to the city’s employment-discrimination framework while requiring reasonable accommodation under the ordinance’s stated trigger. Because municipalities were not searched one by one nationwide, this is an identified local overlay—not a claim that no other local rule exists.

Philadelphia Bill 250849 adds menstruation, perimenopause, and menopause to the local Fair Practices Ordinance. Its accommodation rule applies when symptoms substantially interfere with an employee’s ability to perform one or more job functions, the employee requests accommodation, and the accommodation would not impose undue hardship.

The trigger is different from Rhode Island’s. Rhode Island’s text does not use the Philadelphia ordinance’s “substantially interfere” formulation. The two enacted instruments should not be summarized as though they create the same threshold.

The city’s fair-practices employer definition generally reaches an employer with one or more employees, subject to the code’s exclusions. Rhode Island generally begins at four employees. Philadelphia’s ordinance is local, was not yet effective on July 31, 2026, and cannot be generalized to the rest of Pennsylvania.

We also located sub-statutory activity in Los Angeles involving policy work for city employees and nonbinding New York City guidance. Neither was classified as an enacted private-sector local ordinance.

Washington Executive Order 26-01 directs state agencies to review and update menopause-related workplace practices and orders broader guidance and training development. Michigan Public Act 21 of 2026 directs the labor department to produce employer best-practice recommendations that expressly address menstruation and menopause support. Both are enacted government actions; neither creates a new individual accommodation claim against private employers.

These two states are why the tracker needs more than two categories.

Washington

Executive Order 26-01, signed June 1, 2026, directs the Washington State Women’s Commission, Office of Financial Management, and cabinet agencies to review policies, update accommodation practices, and develop training and guidance. It took effect immediately and directly governs state-government operations. It does not amend a statute to create a blanket new private-employer menopause right.

The governor’s announcement said 38% of working women in Washington are ages 40 to 59. That figure should be attributed to the governor’s office, not restated as an independently calculated federal statistic.

Michigan

Section 308 of the enacted budget provision requires the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity to develop recommendations for employers on best practices to support, attract, and retain women. The text expressly requires the recommendations to address menstruation and menopause support, including resources, symptoms training, and insurance practices, with recommendations due January 1, 2027.

The separate Michigan Women’s Commission Menopause Memorandum reports results from its statewide survey and recommends education, policy review, accommodations, benefits review, and supervisor or HR training. The Commission estimated a loss of roughly 16,500 women from the Michigan workforce annuallyby extrapolating from survey respondents who said they had left a job because of symptoms. That is the Commission’s extrapolation and depends on its representativeness assumption; it is not a direct administrative count.

At the July 31 cutoff, legislative attention had moved farther than enacted rights. Rhode Island had the only current explicit statewide accommodation statute; Illinois was awaiting the governor; Virginia had been vetoed; California and a New York study bill had each passed one chamber; and Maryland had passed one chamber without enactment before adjournment. That dated status—not a generalized trend claim—is what the dataset can prove.

The workforce context is already present. The Department of Labor Women’s Bureau reports that about half of the workforce experiences menstruation and menopause at some point and that roughly one in ten U.S. workers is a woman age 55 or older.

The legal layer remains fragmented. A worker’s route can depend on whether the jurisdiction has express statutory text, an agency interpretation, a public-sector directive, general disability or discrimination law, a local ordinance, or no identified menopause-specific instrument at all.

Employers receive requests regardless of the category. A request for a desk fan, schedule change, rest break, seating change, or leave can arrive before a legislature acts. The absence of a menopause-specific statute changes the legal analysis; it does not stop the workplace question from arising.

For the broader picture of enacted menopause legislation including insurance mandates and health policy, see the companion Menopause Laws by State: 2026 Tracker in the Research library.

We searched all 50 states and the District of Columbia under a fixed workplace inclusion rule, used official sources to assign every published status, and recorded dated negative results instead of silently omitting states. The headline counts are reproducible: one row per jurisdiction, one mutually exclusive primary statewide status per row, 13 action jurisdictions, and 38 jurisdictions where no explicit statewide measure was located.

Unit of analysis. One row represents one state or the District of Columbia. Local laws are recorded as overlays and do not create an additional state-level count.

Search vocabulary. We searched official legislative, executive, and agency sources using combinations of menopause, perimenopause, postmenopause, menstruation, employment, workplace, discrimination, reasonable accommodation, leave, executive order, civil rights, guidance, and related bill-history terms.

Inclusion rule. A jurisdiction is recorded as having an express menopause workplace measure only where an official instrument expressly names menopause or perimenopause in an employment context: discrimination, reasonable accommodation, leave, workplace policy, employer guidance, government workforce action, or workplace-rights education.

What we deliberately excluded. Insurance mandates, clinical education and licensure bills, public-awareness resolutions, awareness weeks, and general health toolkits were not counted as workplace laws merely because they mention menopause. Those measures can be real and consequential; they answer a different question.

Primary-status assignment.Every jurisdiction receives one mutually exclusive primary statewide status based on the strongest current legal effect located at the cutoff. That is why New Jersey is counted under official existing-law guidance even though it also has pending bills. Philadelphia is recorded as a local overlay and does not change Pennsylvania’s statewide binding-right answer.

Enacted-law threshold.“Enacted explicit statewide law” requires an enacted, operative statewide legal instrument that expressly names menopause and creates an employment right or employer duty. Rhode Island met that test. Washington’s executive order, Michigan’s recommendation mandate, and New Jersey’s agency guidance did not.

Negative results. The publishable negative result is: No explicit menopause-specific statewide workplace measure was located in this review as of July 31, 2026. We publish all 38 negative rows so a reader can distinguish “checked and not located” from “not checked.”

Source hierarchy.Official enacted or enrolled text and codified law first; official bill histories, votes, governor actions, executive orders, agency publications, and municipal records next. University legislative reporting services were used where useful to interpret a bill’s structure. News reports and law-firm alerts were discovery aids, not final status authority.

Version control. The controlling version at the verification date governed. That rule is how the review separates the Illinois House version from the narrower enrolled version, the Virginia pre-veto coverage from the final veto, and New York leave summaries from controlling text.

Quality checks. The totals must sum to 51. The 13 action jurisdictions are the complement of the 38 negative-result rows. Every consequential claim is classified internally as primary-source required, current-verification required, or editorial synthesis before publication.

The downloadable dataset provides the jurisdiction, binding-right answer, status code, legal-status tier, instrument, scope, protection or government action, existing-law pathway, latest official action, effective date, local overlay, primary-source URL, official search portal, last-verified date, research note, and verification method.

This is a dated national state-level audit, not a guarantee that no unindexed bill, new filing, agency position, collective-bargaining provision, employer policy, or local rule exists. It reports legal instruments and official interpretations; it does not predict case outcomes or replace advice from a qualified professional or enforcement agency.

• Absence is a research result, not proof of nonexistence. Thirty-eight rows say no explicit statewide measure was located under the method and date stated.
• Municipal law was not exhaustively surveyed. Philadelphia is an identified local overlay, not proof that it is the only local policy anywhere in the country.
• Statuses move. Illinois, California, New York, and the other pending rows can change after publication.
• Guidance is not statute.New Jersey’s row reflects the enforcing agency’s published interpretation, not an enacted menopause statute or a binding judicial holding.
• A study estimate is not an administrative count. Michigan’s 16,500 figure is the Women’s Commission’s extrapolation from its survey and should always be attributed with that limitation.
• Coverage depends on facts. Employer size, job duties, symptoms, statutory triggers, requested adjustment, and undue hardship can all matter.
• This is not legal or medical advice. The HRT Index is not a law firm, healthcare provider, or government agency. A specific situation belongs with a licensed employment attorney, the relevant civil-rights agency, or another qualified professional.

This page uses The HRT Index’s real editorial byline and links to the site’s published methodology, editorial standards, medical-review policy, and corrections policy. It does not claim attorney review, medical review, government affiliation, or credentials that were not part of the work.

• Research methodology
• Editorial standards
• Medical review policy
• Corrections policy
• The HRT Index Editorial Team

The reference below supplies neutral attribution details for this dated research snapshot. It is not a request for a citation or link.

The full dataset includes the jurisdiction, binding-right answer, status code, legal-status tier, instrument, scope, protection or government action, existing-law pathway, latest official action, effective date, local overlay, primary-source URL, official search portal, last-verified date, research note, and verification method for all 51 jurisdictions.

This page was produced by The HRT Index Editorial Team as independent editorial research and was not medically reviewed. It contains no advertising, affiliate links, lead routing, or commercial relationship relevant to the subject, and it does not claim legal, medical, or government authority.

The HRT Index is an independent research and reference resource covering menopause, hormone therapy, and related policy. The publisher is The HRT Index LLC.

We read the controlling Rhode Island text, the Illinois bill history and enrolled text, the federal agency materials, and the New Jersey guidance directly. Each action jurisdiction was checked against an official record, and every negative row was retained with a dated research caveat rather than turned into an absolute claim.