Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less