Report on Civil Society Opposition to U.S. House Bill H.R. 3492

Executive Summary

A coalition of 95 international and U.S.-based civil society organizations (CSOs) has issued a formal appeal to the U.S. Government, urging the rejection of House Bill H.R. 3492. The bill seeks to amend federal law by conflating Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) with gender-affirming medical care for minors. The coalition argues this legislation fundamentally misrepresents both issues, thereby undermining critical progress on several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The proposed amendment is reported to dilute existing legal protections against FGM/C and promote discriminatory policies, setting a dangerous precedent both domestically and globally.

Legislative Context and Civil Society Mobilization

H.R. 3492: A Challenge to Established Legal Frameworks

On May 19, 2025, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced H.R. 3492. The bill proposes to expand the legal definition within 18 U.S. Code § 116, the federal law prohibiting FGM/C. The amendment aims to criminalize the provision of gender-affirming care for individuals under 18 by defining it as “genital mutilation.” This redefinition directly challenges the internationally recognized definition of FGM/C, a practice affecting over 230 million individuals globally. The House Judiciary Committee’s approval of the bill on June 10, 2025, has escalated concerns among human rights advocates.

Coalition Response

Led by the U.S. End FGM/C Network, the Global Platform for Action to End FGM/C, and the Americas Alliance to End FGM/C, a consortium of 95 CSOs, survivors, and activists has co-signed an open letter of opposition. The signatories express profound concern that the bill’s conflation of distinct issues will impede efforts to achieve key SDG targets and reverse decades of progress in human rights.

Impact Analysis on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Undermining SDG 5: Gender Equality

The proposed legislation poses a significant threat to the achievement of SDG 5, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

• Threat to Target 5.3 (Eliminate Harmful Practices): The core mission to eradicate FGM/C is aligned with Target 5.3. By expanding the scope of the anti-FGM/C law to include unrelated medical procedures, H.R. 3492 dilutes its focus and effectiveness. This could weaken legal and community-based efforts to protect the over 500,000 women and girls in the U.S. at risk of or affected by FGM/C.
• Contradiction of Target 5.1 (End Discrimination): The bill introduces a discriminatory framework that targets transgender and gender non-conforming youth, directly opposing the goal of ending all forms of discrimination against women and girls. It weaponizes a law designed to protect girls from violence to marginalize another vulnerable group.

Jeopardizing SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The bill’s false equivalency between a harmful practice and essential healthcare directly conflicts with the principles of SDG 3.

• FGM/C: A non-consensual procedure performed on children for non-medical reasons, FGM/C is recognized as a human rights violation with severe, lifelong negative impacts on physical, sexual, and psychological health.
• Gender-Affirming Care: An evidence-based, medically necessary, and consensual form of healthcare. Research indicates it improves psychosocial functioning and significantly decreases rates of depression among recipients. Denying this care is detrimental to the well-being of transgender youth.

Eroding SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The legislation undermines the foundations of justice, equality, and institutional integrity.

• Violation of Target 16.2 (End Violence Against Children): FGM/C is a form of child abuse and violence. The report argues that H.R. 3492 distracts from and obstructs the primary goal of protecting children from this specific harm.
• Violation of Target 10.3 and 16.b (Promote Non-Discriminatory Laws): The bill represents a discriminatory policy that increases inequality by targeting a specific community. This contravenes the global commitment to ensure equal opportunity and enforce non-discriminatory laws for sustainable development.
• Weakening the Rule of Law: By distorting an established legal definition agreed upon by international bodies like the World Health Organization, the bill risks undermining the integrity of the U.S. legal system and its ability to prosecute the actual crime of FGM/C effectively.

Recommendations for Upholding SDG Commitments

To preserve the integrity of human rights law and maintain progress toward the SDGs, the coalition presents the following urgent recommendations:

1. The U.S. Congress must unequivocally reject H.R. 3492 to prevent the dilution of anti-FGM/C legislation and protect vulnerable communities.
2. All federal and state government bodies must refrain from falsely equating FGM/C with gender-affirming care and instead focus resources on preventing FGM/C, thereby promoting human rights for all.
3. All stakeholders are invited to stand in solidarity to foster an environment where the dignity and rights of every individual are defended, particularly those from marginalized groups.
4. Global decision-makers and civil society actors must reject any attempt to instrumentalize the campaign against FGM/C to advance discriminatory political agendas that harm the broader human rights movement.

List of Signatories

1. #StandWithHer
2. ACCM (UK)
3. African Women Rights Organisation (AWRA)
4. Asian Pacific Resource & Research Center for Women
5. Association CO-GNA Mère de l’enfant
6. Association des Enfants et Jeunes Travailleurs (AEJT)
7. Aura Freedom International
8. Ayuda
9. Birth Nutrition
10. British Black Anti Poverty Network
11. Center for Gender and Refugee Studies
12. Centre de Formation en Mécanismes de Protection des Droits Humains (CFMPDH), Benin
13. Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
14. Centre for Youth Empowerment and Civic Education (CYECE)
15. CHOICE for Youth and Sexuality
16. Circuit Pointe Charity Foundation
17. Coalition des femmes-filles handicapées féministes de l’Afrique de l’Ouest
18. Community Care Collective
19. Covenant Foundation for Girls (COFGIRLS)
20. Doctors on Ground (DnG)
21. Ekiti State
22. End FGM Africa Network
23. End FGM Canada Network
24. END FGM EU Network
25. END FGM/C Network Africa
26. Equality Now
27. ERA Coalition
28. ESWA
29. Farah Fundaition Development
30. Federatie COC Nederland
31. FGM/C Advisory Committee
32. Fondation Zenab Sangare
33. Fòs Feminista
34. Fundacion Derechos Humanos Equidad y Genero (FunDheg)
35. Grow Well
36. Highlands Women Human Rights Defenders Movement
37. Humanity For The World (HFTW)
38. Humanity for Women and Children
39. ILGA-North American and the Caribbean
40. Illinois Accountability Initiative
41. Immigration Center for Women and Children
42. International Action Network for Gender Equity & Law (IANGEL)
43. International Federation of Business and Professional Women
44. International Survivors of Family Empowered-iSAFE
45. Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence
46. Kalkal Human Rights Development Organization (KAHRDO)
47. KAN-WIN
48. Kenya Council of Imams and Ulamaa
49. Laal NYC
50. LastMile4D
51. Magnuson Trust
52. Malaysian Doctors for Women and Children
53. Mother Africa
54. Muslims for Progressive Values
55. NAFGEM Tanzania
56. National Coalition Against Harmful Practices (NACAHP) Liberia
57. Network Against FGM in Somaliland- NAFIS NETWORK
58. ONG éducation Universelle
59. Orchid Project
60. Outright International
61. PAI
62. Qalbumaryam
63. Raksha Inc
64. Restorative Justice Coalition
65. Rural Development Foundation (RDF)
66. Sahiyo U.S. Inc.
67. Sakhi for South Asia Survivors
68. Salamander Trust
69. Same Boat Consulting
70. Settlement Services International
71. Society of Gender Professionals
72. Solidarity Yaad International
73. Solutions for Igniting Social Transformation
74. South Asia Network
75. South Asian SOAR
76. Spread Truth
77. Spread Truth Africa
78. STEWARDWOMEN
79. Tahirih Justice Center
80. Taves Generation
81. The Advocates for Human Rights
82. The Girls’ Agenda
83. The Global Platform for Action to End FGM/C
84. The U.S. End FGM/C Network
85. Together for Girls
86. Umoja Development Organization
87. Université de Montréal
88. Voix de Femmes
89. Washington Coalition to End FGM/C
90. WeSpeakOut
91. White Ribbon Alliance UK
92. Without Exception Films
93. Women Deliver
94. Youth Association for Development (YAD)

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the opposition to H.R. 3492 and the protection of anti-FGM/C laws addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary connections are to goals concerning gender equality, health, justice, and partnerships.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), which is explicitly defined as “a form of child abuse, gender discrimination, and violence against women and girls.” The article also addresses the backlash against “gender equality and LGBTIQ+ rights,” further cementing its connection to SDG 5.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects FGM/C to health outcomes, stating it “causes short and long-term physical, sexual, and psychological harm.” It also discusses the health aspects of gender-affirming care, noting that it is “medically necessary” and “leads to decreased rates of depression, improvement in psychosocial functioning.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article is centered on a legal issue—the proposed amendment (H.R. 3492) to an existing federal law (18 U.S. Code § 116). It discusses the importance of preserving the integrity of the law, promoting human rights, and ensuring legal frameworks protect vulnerable populations. FGM/C is described as a “human rights violation” and a form of “torture under international human rights law,” linking the issue directly to justice and strong institutions.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article itself is an example of this goal in action. It is an open letter co-signed by “92 civil society organizations from across the United States and around the world,” including networks like the U.S. End FGM/C Network and the Global Platform for Action to End FGM/C. This demonstrates a multi-stakeholder partnership working to influence policy and protect human rights.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific targets can be identified within the relevant SDGs based on the article’s text.

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.3: “Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation.” The article’s primary focus is the fight to end FGM/C and to prevent the dilution of laws designed for its eradication.
   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The article identifies FGM/C as “gender discrimination” and also opposes the proposed bill for its potential to “stigmatize, marginalize, or scapegoat” transgender individuals, which is another form of discrimination.

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.7: “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services…” The article discusses FGM/C as a practice to “control their sexuality” and highlights its negative “sexual” health effects. It also advocates for access to “medically necessary” gender-affirming care.
   • Target 3.4: “…promote mental health and well-being.” The text explicitly mentions the “psychological harm” caused by FGM/C and the positive mental health outcomes of gender-affirming care, such as “decreased rates of depression.”

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.2: “End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.” The article repeatedly defines FGM/C as a “human rights violation,” a “form of child abuse,” and a practice considered “a form of torture under international human rights law.”
   • Target 16.B: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The central conflict in the article is the call to reject H.R. 3492, which is presented as a discriminatory policy, and to uphold the existing “STOP FGM Act,” which is framed as a protective, non-discriminatory law.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.17: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…” The open letter, co-signed by a large and diverse coalition of 92 CSOs, is a direct manifestation of this target, showcasing a civil society partnership aimed at achieving a shared policy goal.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides both quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

1. For Target 5.3 (Eliminate FGM/C):

   The article provides prevalence data that serves as a baseline for Indicator 5.3.2 (Proportion of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting). Specific data points mentioned are:

   • “over 230 million women and girls worldwide” affected by FGM/C.
   • “over half a million women and girls in the United States alone” affected by FGM/C.
   • FGM/C takes place in “over 94 countries.”

2. For Target 16.2 (End violence against children):

   The existence of a legal framework is a key indicator. The article’s discussion of “U.S. Federal law 18 U.S. Code § 116 ‘Female Genital Mutilation,’ as amended by the STOP FGM Act” serves as a qualitative indicator for Indicator 16.2.2 (Number of countries with national legislation to address violence against children).

3. For Target 3.4 (Promote mental health):

   The article implies an indicator for mental health outcomes by citing research that shows “gender-affirming care leads to decreased rates of depression.” This suggests that tracking rates of depression among relevant populations can be a measure of progress.

4. For Target 17.17 (Promote partnerships):

   A direct, quantifiable indicator is provided in the text: the partnership consists of “92 civil society organizations from across the United States and around the world,” demonstrating the scale and scope of the collaboration.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: equalitynow.org