HB1389 updates Maryland law on female genital mutilation (FGM) by expanding and clarifying the statutory definition of the practice and expressly tying it to child abuse reporting requirements. The bill amends the Family Law article so that FGM is included within the definition of “abuse” for mandatory reporting purposes, meaning certain professionals who suspect a child has been subjected to FGM must report it to the appropriate authorities. It also revises the Health-General article to define FGM in detail, prohibit knowingly performing, attempting, conspiring to perform, or transporting a minor out of state for the procedure, and prohibit a parent or guardian from consenting to it.
The bill increases criminal penalties for violations from up to 5 years and a $5,000 fine to up to 10 years and a $10,000 fine. It also adds a professional licensing consequence: if a person licensed under the Health Occupations Article is convicted of, pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or receives probation before judgment for a violation, the relevant licensing board must revoke the license. In addition, the bill creates a civil cause of action for victims, allowing them to seek damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief, subject to a limitations period tied to the date of the violation or the victim’s age.
HB1389 also requires the Maryland Department of Health to report annually on de-identified data related to FGM reports, prosecutions, convictions, and civil cases, and to make that report public. The Department must further develop and distribute culturally and linguistically appropriate educational materials about the signs, health risks, and penalties associated with FGM to health providers, law enforcement, schools, the public, and other relevant organizations. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly supportive and noncontroversial: the bill passed the House 128-0 and the Senate 46-0 before being signed into law. No committee transcript material was provided, and the unanimous votes suggest broad bipartisan agreement on strengthening prevention, reporting, enforcement, and victim remedies related to FGM.
The main policy points of contention, based on the bill text itself, would likely center on the expansion of mandatory reporting, the increased criminal penalties, the mandatory license revocation provision, and the creation of a private civil right of action. However, the available legislative record shows no recorded opposition in floor votes, indicating that any concerns did not prevent unanimous passage.
The bill amends Maryland’s Family Law and Health-General statutes to treat female genital mutilation as child abuse for mandatory reporting purposes, to broaden and clarify the criminal prohibition on FGM, and to add new enforcement tools. It increases penalties, requires license revocation for certain health professionals convicted under the subtitle, creates a civil remedy for victims, and mandates annual reporting and public education by the Maryland Department of Health. These changes affect health practitioners, educators, police, human service workers, licensed medical professionals, parents or guardians of minors, and victims seeking legal relief.
The bill appears to have had overwhelmingly positive support. It passed both chambers unanimously, with 128-0 in the House and 46-0 in the Senate, and was approved by the Governor as Chapter 29. The lack of recorded dissent or committee transcript material suggests the measure was viewed as a public health and child protection bill with broad consensus.
The bill’s most notable potential points of contention are its expansion of mandatory reporting to include FGM, the increase in criminal penalties, the requirement that health occupations boards revoke licenses upon certain convictions or pleas, and the new civil cause of action with damages and attorney’s fees. These provisions could raise concerns about enforcement scope, professional discipline, and litigation exposure. Even so, the voting record shows no formal opposition, so any disagreement was not reflected in final passage votes.