Frequently Asked Questions

The Federal STOP FGM Act was signed into law on Jan 5, 2021. The Federal STOP FGM Act was signed into law on Jan. 5, 2021. This bipartisan bill, which originated with House Democrats and passed unanimously in
both the House and the Seante, reaffirmed the federal FGM/C ban, increased the penalty for FGM/C from five years imprisonment to ten, strengthened the definition of FGM/C (including specifying that parents/guardians consenting to have their daughters cut are also in violation of the law), and called for the government to report on the number of women and girls impacted by the practice in the US, as well as government agencies’ actions to end the practice.

However, despite the federal law, state laws remain critical tools in addressing FGM/C. Federal crimes are prosecuted by Assistant US Attorneys and investigated by federal officers, such as FBI or DEA agents. State
crimes are investigated by county sheriffs, state agents, or local police officers, and prosecuted by state district attorneys or city attorneys. Federal law is not a substitute for state law; FGM/C cases are more likely to be
investigated and prosecuted on a state level rather than a federal level because of increased local resources and local police power.

State laws prohibiting FGM/C send a strong message that the practice is not acceptable at the state level. We
know anecdotally that families on the fence or who are resisting having their daughters be cut, but facing pressure from family or community members to do so, use existing laws as the reason why they will not cut
their daughters.

In addition, state laws fill gaps left by federal laws. Comprehensive state legislation provides education and
outreach on FGM/C to local communities and professionals likely to encounter cases of FGM/C, bans taking
a girl outside of the state to undergo FGM/C, and gives survivors the opportunity to stand up for themselves in
a court of law, should they choose to do so.

To learn more about the importance of supporting a legal framework, watch this second episode of Truth about FGM/C with Dr. Annemarie Middelburg and Mariya Taher, (Co-founder of Sahiyo).

To learn more about the difference between Federal and State Laws, visit here.

According to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF), the definition of abuse includes “a child inflicted with physical injuries other than by accidental means.” (See more here – Child Abuse & Neglect Definitions). Arguably, this should include FGM/C. Initial discussions with DCF suggest that they would consider FGM/C child abuse. In such cases, mandatory reporting requirements would apply, and nothing in the proposed FGM/C legislation would change the status quo. However, without proper education and training for mandated reporters on FGM/C, DCF might not recognize the signs that a child has either undergone or is at-risk of undergoing FGM/C, and it may go unreported as a result.

Additionally, under existing laws in CT connected to crimes of physical harm, there must be specific intent to
cause injury by the person committing the crime. FGM/C does not always meet this criterion because,
although the act itself causes injury, the intent of the actor is often not to harm the child but to help her fit into
her community, avoid being shamed, or be marriageable to another community member. Thus, in such
instances, a specific law prohibiting FGM/C is required.

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US, so it is not possible that the criminal law we are proposing could be used to punish acts that occurred before it was enacted. As a result, someone who performed FGM/C before it was illegal could also not be deported on the basis that they committed this crime.

Here’s a brief discussion about why the Constitution prohibits these laws:

They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.

We are not aware of any states that have delayed the criminalization aspect pending a period of education and community awareness.

Connecticut has passed laws known as Custodial Interference (or Parental Kidnapping) laws that make it unlawful to remove a child from the state where the child’s health or safety is endangered. On this basis, it could be possible to criminalize transporting a child out of state for the purpose of committing FGM/C. The law we are proposing, however, does not include such a provision, although many other states do have such provisions in their laws. Under federal law, it is unlawful to transport a child for purposes of FGM/C between states or between a state and a foreign country.

No. A number of states have also required licensed medical practitioners to lose their licenses, however, which is arguably an additional penalty. Both licensed medical practitioners and traditional cutters can
derive revenue from the practice of FGM/C. In the case of traditional cutters, revenue is a primary factor in the continuation of the harmful practice, even when harm is well known. This is one of the reasons
criminalization is necessary to act as a deterrent.

We are not currently aware of any CT doctors who perform FGM/C; however, we know that healthcare providers in the US who perform this practice do so in secrecy. Many health professionals likely have no intention of harming the girls and believe they are helping them fit into their community, avoid being shamed, or be marriageable to another community member. However, the Hippocratic oath that medical professionals swear by promises to do no harm to others. Performing FGM/C is a violation of this oath and of federal law. Though we do not know of any specific cases in Connecticut, in the U.S. there have been doctors found to be practicing FGM/C, as was discovered in a case out of Michigan, the first time a doctor was charged under federal law. This case was prosecuted under federal law against FGM/C because the girls impacted were transported across state lines to undergo FGM/C. Though the charges have since been dropped for technical reasons, it exemplifies the need for state laws. Part of the technicality included a District Judge saying that FGM/C laws need to be prosecuted at the state level like other crimes are (i.e. homicide, domestic violence, etc.).  

Alhough no specific cases of FGM/C in Connecticut have yet come to light, in the US, there is evidence of doctors performing FGM/C, as was discovered in U.S. v. Nagarwala, a case out of Michigan, the first time a doctor was charged under federal law. This case was prosecuted under federal law against FGM/C because the girls impacted were transported across state lines to undergo FGM/C. Though the charges have
since been dropped for technical reasons, it exemplifies the need for state laws. Part of the technicality included a District Judge saying that FGM/C laws need to be prosecuted at the state level like other crimes
are (i.e. homicide, domestic violence, etc.).

Additionally, FGM/C was considered a standard medical procedure in the US for most of the 19th and 20th centuries. Physicians performed surgeries of varying invasiveness to treat several diagnoses, including hysteria, depression, nymphomania, and frigidity, as well as to discourage masturbation. The medicalization
of FGM/C in the United States allowed these practices to continue until the end of the 20th century, with some procedures covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance until 1977. Renee Bergstrom, one such survivor has shared her own story of having FGM/C done to her at the age of 3 due to being found masturbating. 

If a doctor or other healthcare provider is found in the future to have performed FGM/C on girls, Connecticut needs a state law to give these girls justice and protect other girls from FGM/C moving forward. 

No, the proposed law against FGM/C would not affect the legality of gender-affirming care services in Connecticut. FGM/C and gender-affirming care are not the same, and the two should not be conflated. FGM/C is performed without consent and compromises a person’s bodily autonomy, leading to long-term negative physical and mental health effects. Conversely, gender-affirming care is an evidence-based and medically necessary form of health care that includes a diverse array of interventions to align one’s identity
with their sexual characteristics; such care is only provided with the consent of the individual. Research shows that gender-affirming care leads to decreased rates of depression, improvement in psychosocial
functioning, and minimal long-term side effects.

For additional information on the differences between FGM/C and gender-affirming care, see the following: Equality Now’s Policy Brief and Sahiyo, The US End FGM/C Network, Equality Now, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Joint Statement

Here are a few links that you might find helpful:

• https://www.equalitynow.org/why_the_law
• https://www.equalitynow.org/the_law_and_fgm
• https://www.equalitynow.org/fgm_in_the_us_learn_more
• https://endfgmnetwork.org/resources/

The UNFPA estimates that at least 59 countries have passed laws against FGM, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand. Of the 29 countries in Africa where female genital mutilation (FGM) is traditionally practiced, 26 have laws prohibiting FGM/C. Among African nations with laws prohibiting FGM/C, penalties range from monetary fines to a minimum of three months to life in prison. Others continue to struggle to enforce legislation.