SB 259, An Act Concerning Female Genital Mutilation

TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Monday, March 2, 2026

The Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony concerning SB 259, An Act Concerning Female Genital Mutilation.  CHA supports the goal of the bill but has concerns about the bill as written.

Connecticut hospitals make our state stronger by delivering nationally recognized, world-class care, supporting jobs and economic growth, and serving communities across Connecticut.  Every day, hospitals improve access, affordability, and health equity — providing care to all patients regardless of ability to pay.  At the same time, hospitals invest in their workforce and local communities, even as they navigate significant financial and federal challenges.

SB 259 seeks to make it a crime if a 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.”

At lines 7-14, the only exceptions to the crime are delineated as when the procedure is:

(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed and is performed by a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 370 of the general statutes; or

(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth for a medical purpose related to such labor or birth by a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 370 of the general statutes, a nurse-midwife licensed pursuant to chapter 377 of the general statutes or a person in training to become such a physician or nurse-midwife

The bill goes on to clarify that the underlying medical purpose cannot be based on a belief that “such operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.”

CHA appreciates that there are children who are forced to undergo ritual or custom-based unnecessary genital female mutilation “operations” and that the bill’s intent is to protect those children.  CHA unequivocally supports that goal.

CHA is concerned that the bill’s exceptions are insufficiently broad.  In the current environment, where it is now the reality, not just an anticipated fear, that the federal government will try to stop gender-affirming care services for minors by declaring such care not only “unnecessary” but a crime, it is incumbent on the legislature to be particularly careful with statutory wording.  Otherwise, Connecticut law could be twisted to be used against providers in Connecticut.  It is important to realize that “genital mutilation” is precisely the terminology being used by the federal government to describe gender-affirming care. 

Additionally, physicians and mid-wives are not the only practitioners who participate in legitimate surgeries or maternal, delivery-related procedures.  

We ask that if the bill progresses, that the language be revised so that there is reduced risk of interference with medical care while still completely banning barbaric rituals or custom-based mutilation.

This could be accomplished by revising the two enumerated exceptions found at lines 7-14 as follows: 

(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of subsection (a) of this section if such operation is 

(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed and is for a medical purpose and performed by a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 370 of the general statutes or other licensed healthcare professional acting within the scope of their profession

or

(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth for a medical purpose related to such labor or birth by a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 370 of the general statutes, a nurse-midwife licensed pursuant to chapter 377 of the general statutes or a person in training to become such a physician or nurse-midwife, or other licensed healthcare professional acting within the scope of their profession.

Additionally, SB 259 includes an extension of the statute of limitations for claims that might be brought by individuals who were the victim of genital mutilation.  While it would be a significant mistake for the legislature to extend the statutes of limitations for negligence matters given the sound and long-standing policy reasons that make statutes of limitations necessary, this bill’s proposal is distinguishable.  We appreciate that in this instance, a claim would not be based in negligence, but would be for intentional and criminally impermissible actions, and (with the suggested revisions listed above) would not relate to gender-affirming care. 

Thank you for your consideration of our position.  For additional information, contact CHA Government Relations at (203) 294-7301.