Survivors and advocates press committee to strengthen SB 1438 to ban female genital mutilation in Connecticut

Survivors, clinicians and human‑rights advocates urged the Judiciary Committee March 24 to pass Senate Bill 1438, which would prohibit female genital mutilation/cutting (FGMC) in Connecticut. Several witnesses said the bill as drafted is an important step but urged amendments to broaden the statutory definition, raise criminal penalties and add prevention and survivor‑support provisions.

Advocates and survivors pressing for broader language

Joe Keogh, a founding member of the Connecticut Coalition to End FGMC and a licensed professional counselor, said FGMC can have “profoundly traumatic and lifelong impacts” that include post‑traumatic stress disorder, chronic shame and psychosexual issues. He told the committee the coalition proposed alternative bill language attached to his written testimony that would be more “holistic, survivor driven, and shaped by meaningful discussions” with other statewide organizations.

Anastasia Law of Equality Now, an international human‑rights group, urged the committee to align Connecticut’s proposed law with international norms. She noted the U.S. has ratified treaties that obligate governments to protect women and girls from FGMC and said federal law alone is insufficient. Law recommended that the statute adopt the full WHO definition of FGMC, add prevention measures such as education and training for health professionals, and include a tolled civil cause of action allowing survivors up to 30 years after turning 18 to sue.

Medical experts and public‑health concerns

Catherine McKenzie, a Yale physician and director of the Yale Center for Asylum Medicine, described the medical harms she has observed in exam rooms and urged an education requirement for clinicians. McKenzie said FGMC often occurs in childhood, frequently without anesthesia, and can cause short‑ and long‑term medical complications including scarring, infection, menstrual problems, infertility and obstetric risks. She recommended adding a state health department educational program for prevention and ensuring the statute covers all four WHO‑classified types of FGMC.

Survivor voices and coalition asks

Survivors and coalition members said the bill as drafted should be strengthened in three areas: (1) expand the statutory definition to cover all WHO types of FGMC, (2) include civil remedies and an extended statute of limitations to allow survivors to sue later in life, and (3) create prevention and education programs for health and child‑welfare professionals. Maria Tyar, a Connecticut advocate and survivor, said education is essential because many providers do not recognize signs of FGMC and communities need culturally competent outreach.

Penalties and drafting questions

Witnesses recommended reclassifying FGMC as a Class C felony to match the seriousness of other childhood sexual offenses, rather than the Class D felony in the bill’s current draft. Several witnesses — including representatives of the Connecticut Coalition to End FGMC, Equality Now and the US and FGMC Network — said the cutter should be criminally liable and that survivor civil remedies should be available. They also cautioned against conflating FGMC with gender‑affirming health care, a distinction they said is necessary to avoid misunderstanding and unintended consequences.

What’s next

Committee members asked practical questions about implementation and cost of education programs and discussed which actors should be criminally liable (the cutter vs. those who facilitate the act). Witnesses said they would provide additional language and cost estimates. The committee did not take a vote March 24.

Speakers quoted in this article were identified in the committee record and submitted written testimony to the Judiciary Committee.