Currently, Connecticut is one of only nine states that does not have a codified ban on female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice also known as female circumcision or “cutting.” While advocates hope that Connecticut lawmakers will rectify this by passing SB 259, a proposed bill that would make the act a class D felony, others are concerned that the bill’s language, if not crafted carefully, could be used to prohibit gender affirming care.
“Senate Bill 259 is extremely broad to the point that it risks endangering or banning gender-affirming care,” said the Connecticut ACLU in its written testimony on the bill. “It is entirely foreseeable that this language can and will be hijacked to prohibit gender-affirming care or other reasonable medical treatments.”
The proposed bill would establish FGM as a class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $5,000. It would also allow victims aged 12-years or younger to testify outside of court, would bar witnesses or victims from being deemed incompetent due to age, and allow victims to pursue civil suits against their perpetrators until they’re 48 years old. For cases in which the perpetrators are the victims’ parents, parent-child legal immunity would be waived. On Monday, two anti-FGM advocates, and victims of FGM themselves, Mariya Taher and Zahra Patwa, of Sahiyo, an anti-FGM advocacy group, testified in support of the bill at a public hearing of the Judiciary Committee.
“SB 259 is a strong first step towards Connecticut protecting all those impacted by this human rights violation,” said Taher. “With 41 states in the US already having a law, Connecticut must ensure it protects all girls from this violence. I strongly urge you to pass SB 259, to ensure all survivors are able to gain the support and justice they need.”
FGM is a cultural ritual that partially or fully removes the female vulva and clitoris, with some procedures even going so far as to sew the vulva shut. As of March 2024, UNICEF reports the five countries where FGM is most prevalent among women aged 15-49 as being Somalia (99% ), Guinea (95%), Mali (89%), Egypt and Sudan (87% each). The reasoning behind the procedures, and the procedures themselves, vary across different cultures and differing access to medical resources, but it is almost always practiced on underage girls, some shortly after birth and others as young children or early adolescents, without their consent. The procedure serves no legitimate medical purpose and carries a high risk of medical complications, impacting women’s menstrual, maternal and mental health.
“FGM is a major public health risk, as it causes short-term health risks such as severe pain, excessive bleeding, and genital tissue swelling, as well as a range of long-term complications due to tissue damage, scarring, and infection,” said Manisha Juthani, Commissioner of the State’s Department of Public Health, in written testimony submitted in support of the bill. “Additionally, studies have shown that women and girls who had FGM are more likely to experience PTSD, anxiety, depression, and somatization, where psychological distress manifests in physical pain.”
While the practice is primarily practiced overseas, END FGM/C US estimates that as many as half a million women and girls in the US have been subjected to FGM or are at risk, with approximately 2,742 of them being Connecticut residents. Taher said the idea that FGM is only practiced abroad is a “myth,” and that while hers was performed in India, she has family members who have had it performed in the United States. Furthermore, Taher noted that certain forms of FGM were viewed as legitimate medical procedures in the United States until the 1960’s, prescribed for the treatment of “hysteria,” mental illness or lesbianism.
In 2017, a Michigan doctor, Jumana Nagarwala, was accused of performing FGM on two girls in the United States. His trial marked the nation’s first FGM case since the practice was made federally illegal in 1996, and brought nationwide attention to the issue. Since then, 17 states have enacted anti-FGM laws and the federal government passed a bill to strengthen its own in 2021.
SB 259 is not Connecticut’s first attempt at criminalizing FGM. The first such attempt was made in 2018, but died before being passed out of the Judiciary Committee. In 2019, a proposed ban bill was later amended to propose an intra-state study of FGM, but was ultimately tabled by the State Senate. Another bill aimed at banning the practice died in 2020, and another bill aimed at studying it died in 2021. The current version of the bill was first introduced in 2025, but was not brought to a vote.
In testimony submitted for last year’s version of the bill, Patwa said she did not know she was a victim of FGM until decades later, when her husband showed her a documentary about a 7-year old girl who underwent the procedure in India. Patwa recalled being “horrified,” as the girl was a member of the same sect of Shi’a Islam as her, the Dawoodi Bohras. Patwa was at first shocked, as she didn’t remember it having occurred, but members of her family later confirmed she too had been mutilated.
“I immediately recalled my summer trip from the UK to India at the tender age of 7 to attend my uncle’s wedding,” said Patwa. “What I couldn’t recall, though, was the actual khatna [mutilation], but I have since received confirmation from my family that it was done to me. Even then, the reality did not sink in.”
Patwa said she later learned that “some women erase the memory of the traumatic event completely.” She said the realization caused her “great shame and embarrassment,” and that speaking up has brought her communal backlash.
“There may not be a large number of girls at risk in Connecticut, but if our state can prevent even one more girl being cut, then we will have made a huge change in that girl’s life,” wrote Patwa.
SB 259 defines female genital mutilation as “when such person knowingly circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of a person under eighteen years of age.” It makes an exception for any such procedures that are “necessary to the health of the person on who it is performed” and those “performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth for a medical purpose related to such labor or birth.” The ACLU asked lawmakers to “narrow the bill’s insufficiently broad language,” for fear it could be “read as a ban on gender-affirming care.”
Several “de-transitioners,” individuals who decided to reverse their sexual transitions, and other activists submitted testimony on last year’s version of the bill, requesting it be amended to include explicit bans on transition surgery for minors. The prevalence of speakers attempting to repurpose the bill, as well as attempts at that time by the Trump administration and Republicans in the U.S. Congress to conflate FGM with transition surgery, culminated in several anti-FGM groups, including Sahiyo, releasing a joint statement clarifying their position.
“Our organizations are deeply concerned that critical legislation intended to protect individuals from FGM/C is being co-opted by anti-trans rights agendas to stigmatize, marginalize, or scapegoat individuals and communities,” reads the statement. “This incorrect conflation must be challenged. We call on the federal government and all states to refrain from falsely equating FGM/C and gender-affirming care and to focus instead on the prevention of FGM/C, thus promoting the protection of human rights for all.”
In spite of these developments, both Taher and Patwa’s only stated concern regarding the current bill is a lack of educational measures for both victims and medical professionals, a concern shared by the ACLU.
“For many survivors, their healthcare providers did not know about FGM/C and, therefore, missed clear signs that someone needed help,” said Patwa. “This is why a provision for education of stakeholders including first responders is important so that survivors are not further harmed after they are cut.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
