Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Connecticut is one of only nine states without a ban on female genital mutilation/ cutting. Connecticut lawmakers have a crucial three-month window to ban it.

Opinion

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Every U.S. state needs a comprehensive law against female genital mutilation and cutting.

U.S. End FGM/C Network and Equality Now

Optimism is growing that a new Bill in Connecticut will lead to the introduction of a statewide ban against female genital mutilation/ cutting (FGM/C). Thousands of women and girls across the state have undergone or are at risk of this harmful practice. Despite this, Connecticut remains one of just nine U.S. states that still lack state-level legal protections—something advocates hope this legislation will finally change.

Survivors and others from impacted communities, alongside women’s rights advocates and civil society organizations - including the U.S. Network to End FGM/C, Sahiyo, Equality Now, and the Connecticut General Assembly’s Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity, and Opportunity - have long called for state legislation against FGM/C in Connecticut, citing how a law would help those at risk and their families resist cultural and social pressures to continue the practice.


Connecticut legislators have made five unsuccessful attempts to pass a law addressing FGM/C. Proposed bills in 2018, 2020, and 2021 aimed at criminalizing FGM/C or studying its prevalence did not progress beyond the committee stage, while in 2019, a Bill was rejected by the State Senate. In 2024, a drafted Bill failed to even be introduced.

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION/ CUTTING IN THE UNITED STATES

FGM/C is internationally recognized as a serious human rights violation involving partial or total removal or damage to healthy female genitalia for non-medical reasons. The procedure can lead to numerous immediate and long-term health issues, including severe bleeding which can result in death, chronic infections, psychological trauma, sexual dysfunction, and infertility. FGM/C can also cause childbirth complications and higher maternal and infant mortality rates.

At least 577,000 women and girls in 2019 were estimated to have undergone or be at risk of FGM/C in the U.S., according to the AHA Foundation. While there is some awareness about the practice occurring in some diaspora communities, there is far less recognition of it happening in other communities, including Christian communities in the U.S.

CONNECTICUT’S BILL TO PROHIBIT FGM/C AT THE STATE LEVEL

Connecticut now has the opportunity to ban FGM/C with the 2025 Bill, which has advanced to the second stage of the legislative process for committee review and hearing. If passed, Connecticut will become the 42nd state to criminalize the practice.

While the Bill’s exact language is still pending, previous versions of proposed anti-FGM/C legislation in Connecticut contained best practice provisions such as cross-departmental partnerships to develop and implement prevention and response activities, and education programs to raise awareness about FGM/C’s harms.

Advocates are calling for the Bill to mandate the development of specialized training for healthcare providers, enhanced collaboration between the state and non-governmental organizations, the right for survivors to pursue civil action cases for damages, and delay the start of the statute of limitations until survivors turn 18.

“We are closely monitoring the Bill as it moves through the legislative process and are hopeful that its language will reflect best practice provisions, including creating a civil right of action for survivors,” said Anastasia Law from Equality Now.

“Good legislation in other states incorporates a range of provisions, including robust education and awareness-raising programs, revoking medical licenses from healthcare practitioners who perform FGM/C, mandatory requirements to report FMG/C, and sanctions for “vacation cutting”, which is the practice of arranging for a person to be transported out of the state to undergo FGM/C,” she added.

While parties await the final language to be revealed, the introduction of the Bill marks a crucial step in the right direction.

NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE-LEVEL PROTECTIONS AGAINST FGM/C

Performing FGM/C in the U.S. or taking a girl out of the country for the purpose of being cut is already a federal crime. However, legislation outlawing FGM/C at the state level is crucial because state agencies and officials have far greater capacity than federal authorities to directly assist women and girls.

State laws govern local police, healthcare, social services, criminal justice, and schools. This makes local governments best placed to raise awareness about FGM/C at a community level, provide direct support to survivors and those at risk, and investigate and prosecute cases.

An interactive map by Equality Now and the U.S. End FGM/C Network shares FGM/C legal provisions and gaps in every state. Washington D.C. is the most recent district to pass legislation outlawing the practice, leaving just nine states without state-level legal protection against FGM/C - Connecticut, Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

In 2023, Equality Now, the U.S. End FGM/C Network, and partners made a submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, highlighting the U.S.’s failure to protect women and girls within its borders from FGM/C and other human rights violations. The Committee recommended to the U.S. government that its federal legislation - the Stop FGM Act of 2022 (also known as Strengthening the Opposition to Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2020) - should be effectively implemented and states should be encouraged to pass legislation prohibiting all forms of FGM/C.

If passed, Connecticut will join the growing number of states taking a stand against FGM/C and affirming the right of every woman and girl to live free from this form of harm.

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting was originally published by the Associated Press and is shared with permission. Mel Bailey joined Equality Now in 2022 as the Communications Officer for North America at Equality Now.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less