Frequently Asked Questions

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

The STOP FGM Act passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate. There was no pushback by any of the legislators who champion criminal justice reform.

Despite the federal law, state laws remain critical tools in ending FGM/C. Federal crimes are prosecuted by Assistant U.S. 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. In general, FGM/C cases are more likely to be investigated and prosecuted on a state level rather than a federal level. Specific state anti-FGM/C laws send a strong message that the practice is not acceptable in a certain state. We know anecdotally that families on the fence or resisting having their daughters undergo the procedure, but facing pressure from family or community members to do so, use existing laws as the reason for why they will not cut their daughters.

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

Finally, federal law is not a substitute for state law and will not work in all instances. Can you imagine each time a call comes into the Department of Children and Families they must call the Department of Justice?

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 DCF 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 FGM/C, and it may go unreported. 

Additionally, if we look at existing laws connected to crimes of physical harm, CT law requires that there be a specific intention to cause injury on the part of the person committing the crime. FGM/C does not always meet this criterion because, although the act itself causes injury, the intention of the actor is often not to harm the child but to help her fit into her community, avoid being shamed, be marriageable to another community member, or to control her sexuality. In such cases, a specific law prohibiting the cutting is required

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US – so it is not possible that the criminal law we are proposing can be used to punish acts that occurred in the past before the law was enacted. As a result, someone who committed this act or was otherwise involved before it was illegal also can 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) 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 argued that it is possible to pass a law to say that transporting a child out of state for purposes of committing FGM/C is unlawful. The law we are proposing, however, does not include such a provision although many other states 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. 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 has been a primary factor in the continuation of the practice and has impeded abandonment even when harm is well known and one of the reasons that criminalization is necessary to deter it.

We are not currently aware of any CT doctors who perform FGM/C, however, we know that healthcare providers in the U.S. who perform this practice do so in secrecy. Many of these health professionals likely have no intention of harming the girls, believing they are helping them fit into their community, avoid being shamed, be marriageable to another community member, or control their sexuality. However, the Hippocratic oath that medical professionals swear by promises to do no harm to others. Performing FGM/C is considered a violation of this oath, not to mention a violation 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.).  

Additionally, FGM/C was considered a standard medical procedure in America 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 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. 

FGM/C (which has no medical benefit and is done to control a girl’s sexuality) and gender-affirming healthcare are two completely separate issues. Some politicians have incorrectly conflated the two very different issues, using the words “child sexual mutilation” while referring to trans youth care to disenfranchise the trans community. 

While trying to protect girls who are at risk of FGM/C, or who are dealing with the consequences of it, laws must be carefully written so that they cannot be weaponized against trans youth seeking life-saving gender-affirming care.

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): FGM/C is often performed on prepubescent girls because it is a social norm in practicing communities. It is a result of societal pressure placed on girls, deeming it necessary for them to be a woman, to be a member of their own culture and society, and to be married. FGM/C can have great psychological outcomes, such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Furthermore, these girls often have no choice in the matter, violating their bodily autonomy.

Gender-affirming care: In contrast, gender-affirming care includes a wide range of treatments, including social interventions (new names and pronouns), pubertal suppression, hormone therapy, and gender-affirming surgeries. These treatments are associated with better mental health outcomes and minimal long-term side effects for trans people who receive them. Notably, gender-affirming surgeries, such as vaginoplasty, are usually performed on older adolescents who have shown a consistent gender identity, have stable mental health, and have parental support. These surgeries are undergone after meticulous medical care, often following other prior forms of treatment. Research has shown that regrets about having undergone this procedure are very rare. Furthermore, transgender people must consent to choices about their care as part of their right to bodily autonomy, something that is not present in FGM/C. 

From the differences in mental health outcomes and rights to personal bodily autonomy, it is clear that FGM/C and gender-affirming care cannot be conflated as one issue under the guise of protecting children. Framing is thus key to protecting both girls from FGM/C and not conflating these protections with promoting bans on gender-affirming care. 

FGM/C strips girls of their right to bodily consent and can have a great negative impact on their lives. In addition, it is important to consider LGBTQIA+ survivors of FGM/C, seeing as they too can be impacted by the practice. While, gender-affirming care saves transgender people’s lives, standing as a positive improvement to their lives.

To learn more, visit here.

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.