Abstract

The menstrual cycle is a biological factor, and the person who menstruates, on a monthly basis, needs intimate absorbents, drinking water, adequate bathroom and medications, which we call good management of the period. Its absence, for socioeconomic reasons, incurs in what we call menstrual poverty, contrary to health, life, and dignity. For this reason, the Legislative took to the plenary session the Menstrual Health Protection and Promotion Program, which was not objected by the parliamentarians, but was partially vetoed by the Executive Power, which, afterwards, made public speeches to explain the veto. So, the question is: is there backlash in the speeches supporting the partial veto of Law n. 14.214/2021, that instituted the Menstrual Health Protection and Promotion Program? The hypothesis is that the Executive has acted in a conservative and counterproductive way in relation to women’s rights. To do so, this research uses descriptive and exploratory methodology, with qualitative nature, followed by an analysis of the presidential speech regarding the inputs provided by the Bill, and delimits epistemological category of the concept of woman. It is concluded that there is an institutionalization of backlash, since the discourse defines who can have access to rights, generating social insecurity for a public health.

Keywords
Executive Power; backlash; absorbent; discourse analysis; menstrual dignity