By Harshita Dasot

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a global issue; however, in the United States, it is often incorrectly recognized and associated with only occurring in immigrant communities. In fact, in the United States, over 500,000 women and girls are at risk, with New York having one of the highest populations at over 48,000. New York State, specifically, has adopted several important legal protections related to FGM/C, including allowing survivors to pursue civil action for up to five years after the abuse occurred and formally recognizing FGM/C as a serious human rights and public health issue. But despite this progress, New York still lacks one major legal safeguard that many other states have already adopted: a “vacation cutting” provision.

Vacation cutting is the practice of taking an individual away from their geographical home and crossing state lines or country borders to have FGM/C carried out on the individual elsewhere.

Laws that address vacation cutting make it illegal to transport or send a child out of state or the country for the purpose of FGM/C. Without these provisions, families can potentially bypass local protections by arranging for this harm to occur elsewhere before returning home. Within some communities and contexts, vacation cutting is particularly significant during the summer months, when school breaks can coincide with what advocates and international organizations describe as a “cutting season” in some parts of the world. UNFPA’s research indicates that more girls may be taken during vacation periods to undergo FGM/C and recover before returning to school, including going through cross-border or international travel, because of the convenience. 

And in a state as large and globally connected as New York, that potential for vacation cutting is very real, and the gap of no legislation to address it matters.

Aissata Camara is a survivor and advocate, and she has spoken publicly about being taken from New York to Guinea as a child to be subjected to FGM/C during a school break. She described the experience as traumatic and spoke about the lasting emotional and physical effects it had on her. Her experience reflects the very circumstances that vacation-cutting laws are designed to address: situations in which children may be taken abroad during holidays or summer vacations to undergo FGM/C before returning home. 

Moreover, the Population Reference Bureau estimates that more than 65,000 women and girls in New York alone are at risk of or affected by FGM/C. The same report found that the national at-risk population increased substantially between 1990 and 2012 in just 29 countries alone, largely due to population growth and immigration patterns from countries with a high prevalence rate of FGM/C. 

New York City itself has already acknowledged that FGM/C is not simply an international issue detached from local policy concerns. In 2021, New York City established an FGM/C Advisory Committee, focused on creating recommendations for survivor-centered prevention strategies, culturally competent outreach, healthcare training, and community engagement. The existence of this advisory body demonstrates that policymakers recognize the issue as both happening locally and that it is ongoing.

Despite this recognition, New York state still does not include a vacation-cutting provision within its law.

This lack of legal protections becomes even more striking when compared to the rest of the country. More than 60% of states with anti-FGM/C legislation already include some provisions containing vacation cutting language. Some of these states have significantly smaller populations and fewer legislative resources than New York, yet they have still acted to address cross-border circumvention of the law.

Supporters of vacation-cutting provisions argue that these laws are child-protection measures, meant to preclude taking girls elsewhere to undergo FGM/C. In fact, many of the strongest advocates for reform come directly from FGM/C impacted communities and are part of survivor-led organizations. These advocates understand that legislation = prevention: if the purpose of FGM/C legislation is to protect children from harm, then legal protections should extend to situations where FGM/C is carried out elsewhere.

At the same time, advocates consistently emphasize that criminal law alone is insufficient. New York’s own advisory recommendations repeatedly highlight the importance of culturally competent education, healthcare access, trust-building, and community partnerships. Researchers and advocacy organizations have long warned that poorly designed interventions can stigmatize some immigrant communities, who may be at higher risk of FGM/C, and discourage individuals from seeking medical or social support.

Prevention of FGM/C should be viewed as both a legal and public health issue. Stronger legislation matters, but so do survivor-centered outreach strategies and long-term community engagement. 

New York’s current framework reflects recognition without full implementation. The state acknowledges FGM/C as a serious issue. It has survivor protections, advocacy networks, healthcare discussions, and advisory infrastructure already in place. However, the absence of a vacation-cutting provision still leaves a preventable legal gap.

For a state that frequently positions itself as a national leader on gender-based violence and human rights policy, that gap feels increasingly difficult to justify.

With summer travel and school vacations approaching, the importance of addressing potential cross-border pathways for FGM/C is especially clear. If dozens of other states have already recognized the need to close this loophole, the question becomes harder to ignore:

Why hasn’t New York?