Pregnant soldiers could face court-martial

You put men and women together it is inevitable.
Nature has spent much longer hard wiring our brains on this subject than any military.


Wheels

I can actually remember when a female, in any branch of the U.S. armed forces got pregnant, it was an automatic
discharge, whether she was married or not. I've been out of the Navy for 38 years and lots of things have changed.
Not just in the Navy but in all branches.

Those females in a combat zone, IMHO, do not belong there in the first place... as I said, my own opinion. Gettting
pregnant is just a free ticket home. Females were allowed into the armed forces, way back when, to relieve a man
so he could go to war. However, a courts martial for getting pregnant is pushing it a bit.... But, then, he is
the General, and he has the authority to write a general order.

Charles

I guess they have "take backs" now.


U.S. military drops ban on soldiers getting pregnant - CNN.com



Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, right, said earlier he issued the order in an effort to prevent losing soldiers from active duty


Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military has dropped a controversial rule that called for punishing soldiers in northern Iraq for becoming pregnant or impregnating another soldier.

The updated policy "does not include a pregnancy provision," said Maj. Joe Scrocca, spokesman for U.S. Forces-Iraq.

The military also said that any unit must get the permission of the commander of U.S. Forces-Iraq before creating new rules restricting the activity of troops, Scrocca said.

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo created the rule about pregnancy, covering 22,000 people under his command in northern Iraq, including 1,682 women.

Cucolo said he designed the rule to make his soldiers "think before they act."

It prohibited "becoming nondeployable for reasons within the control of the soldier," including "becoming pregnant or impregnating a soldier ... resulting in the redeployment of the pregnant soldier."

Cucolo made the rule part of General Order No. 1.

While violation of any rules in the general order could lead to court-martial, Cucolo insisted that he never intended such a drastic punishment for pregnancy.

All units have a general order that outlines a code of conduct. Commanders have been allowed to add to those rules but not allowed to make the rules any more lax.

But in an e-mail Friday to CNN, Scrocca wrote that from now on, "all requests by subordinate units to impose further restrictions of activities addressed in General Order No. 1 will require approval of the USF-I commander."

Cucolo had no immediate response. His division said he was spending Christmas Day visiting soldiers.

"It is our understanding that there will be no subordinate command general orders below United States Forces-Iraq. Therefore, as soldiers we will comply," Maj. Jeff Allen of the Multi-National Division North wrote in an e-mail to CNN.

Defending the rule last week, Cucolo said he alone would decide each case based on the individual circumstances.

To date, he said, there have been eight cases of women getting pregnant while deployed under his command. Four were given letters of reprimand that were put in their local files, which means the letters wouldn't end up in their permanent files and they wouldn't be a factor under consideration for promotions.

The four others found out they were pregnant soon after deployment; no disciplinary action was taken since they were not impregnated while deployed.

In all cases, the women were sent back to the United States for medical care, as is military policy. Each has the right to submit a letter in her own defense to be included in her file.

Of the men involved, three were reprimanded, Cucolo said. One, a sergeant, was given a more severe punishment of a written reprimand in his permanent file because he fraternized with a subordinate and committed adultery. A letter in the permanent file can affect a person's career because it is evaluated when a service member is considered for promotion.

A fourth man was never reprimanded because the pregnant soldier refused to identify who the father was, and Cucolo did not pursue the issue.

Cucolo said he expected some controversy.

"But I was also willing to deal with this attention because this is important," he said. "I am responsible and accountable for the fighting ability of my task force. I've got to take every measure to preserve my combat power, and that's the reason."

I knew it wouldn't last.
I wonder how long it is before the general comes home, quietly.


Wheels

Guess its unAmerican to stand up for what you believe in anymore.

RabidAlien said:

The hard part in all this is proving the intentions. And birth controls are not 100% effective (aside from abstinance, but that's not likely to happen these days).

Click to expand...

Politics in your army is your cup of tea, not mine. But I just wanted to point out something that annoyed me in your post.

Sex-Ed 101

Condoms are 99.9% effective. (The 0.1% stand for the case you would accidentaly rip the thing, which is very unlikely as the rubber used for those things is very though.)

There is also two types of surgeries (one for men and one for women) which are both 100% effective. However, I would understand that peoples still wanting children don't wanna "change their family car for a sport car". (Although the surgery for men is reversible.)

P.S. Sheesh... Now I understand the dilema of biology teachers : how to explain that while staying family-friendly ? But I guess I succeeded.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Good that they are going to be court martialed. There is no place for pregnancy in a combat zone. When I was based out of Tikrit we had plenty of women getting pregnant just to go home (most of them were female officers who were married to fellow officers). It was almost a weekly thing to fly them to the main AF base so they could be flown back to Germany.

Click to expand...

We can make soldiers take any kind of experimental innoculation or vaccine, including one that made a friend of mine very sick but we can't make them take birth control?

No place for pregnancy in a combat zone? There's really no place for women in a combat zone. Really I've never seen a shred of indication that the inclusion of women has brought anything but drama and distraction from productivity to the military.

Maestro said:

Politics in your army is your cup of tea, not mine. But I just wanted to point out something that annoyed me in your post.

Sex-Ed 101

Condoms are 99.9% effective. (The 0.1% stand for the case you would accidentaly rip the thing, which is very unlikely as the rubber used for those things is very though.)

There is also two types of surgeries (one for men and one for women) which are both 100% effective. However, I would understand that peoples still wanting children don't wanna "change their family car for a sport car". (Although the surgery for men is reversible.)

P.S. Sheesh... Now I understand the dilema of biology teachers : how to explain that while staying family-friendly ? But I guess I succeeded.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that already. But the only ABSOLUTE in this world, regarding sex, is abstinance. Women have gotten pregnant even when using condoms (ripped, failed, who cares? They still failed.). Women have gotten pregnant after having the surgery. Women have gotten pregnant after MEN had the surgery. Does it happen often? Nope. But if the chance is there, however small, its not a 100% absolute. I think it safe to say that the folks on this site are a little bit better-educated than the average teenager who still snickers his/her way through Sex-Ed 101.

Maestro said:

P

Condoms are 99.9% effective. (The 0.1% stand for the case you would accidentaly rip the thing, which is very unlikely as the rubber used for those things is very though.)

Click to expand...

Unlikely? I have ripped two of them...

Clay_Allison said:

No place for pregnancy in a combat zone? There's really no place for women in a combat zone. Really I've never seen a shred of indication that the inclusion of women has brought anything but drama and distraction from productivity to the military.

Click to expand...

I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I myself have flown with some damn good female pilots in a combat zone. I would fly with them again any day, and I also have no problems with having to fight off an enemy with them if we ever would had been shot down.

RabidAlien said:

Women have gotten pregnant after MEN had the surgery.

Click to expand...

It only happens if they doesn't follow the doc's directives... Staying out of sexual activities for a number of days after the surgery (from the top of my head, I would say two weeks, but it could be shorter). If that rule is not followed, the "canal" could "get re-plugged" on it's own.

Otherwise, if a girl got pregnant after a man got surgery and followed the doctor's directives, then I suspect... the mailman.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Unlikely? I have ripped two of them...

Click to expand...

I told you a thousand of times : don't buy condoms at K-Marts.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Unlikely? I have ripped two of them...



I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I myself have flown with some damn good female pilots in a combat zone. I would fly with them again any day, and I also have no problems with having to fight off an enemy with them if we ever would had been shot down.

Click to expand...

Do they bring any capability to the military that male pilots don't possess? No.

Do they bring distractions and problems that you don't get with all-male personnel? Yes.

Many people think that it's worth sacrificing resources and efficiency on the altar of "Fairness", (the kind of fairness that leads immediately to special treatment). I don't think so.

Clay_Allison said:

Do they bring any capability to the military that male pilots don't possess? No.

Do they bring distractions and problems that you don't get with all-male personnel? Yes.

Many people think that it's worth sacrificing resources and efficiency on the altar of "Fairness", (the kind of fairness that leads immediately to special treatment). I don't think so.

Click to expand...

I disagree, they were better than some of the male pilots. Like I said I would fly and fight with them any day.

Now having said that, I agree with you that they do not belong in direct combat units such as Infantry.

Well, I'll throw this question out to spurn a conversation.

Are their logical fact based reasons why a woman should not fight on the front lines? Thousands of years ago a pretty good argument could be made due to physical reason, but what about today?

I think in WW2 Russian combat woman more then earned their stripes. As of 2008 in the US, females made up 27.2% of law enforcement, and 11.5% of police officers. (FBI - 2008) Is that really any different?

I have no problem with women in front-line military service providing they meet the same standards as the men. The thing that ticked me off when I was in uniform (Brit military) was that females were held to lower physical fitness standards than the males (eg a 40 year-old male had to attain a higher standard of physical fitness than a 20 year-old female) which is just plain wrong, particularly when failure to meet fitness standards resulted in a negative annual performance assessment. Equality means equality - if you want to talk the talk you have to walk the walk (or run, or sit-up or press-up...you get the drift!).

'Fraid I just saw humour in soldiers having to ask permission to do the wild thing - alas, now the General has rescinded the order we've lost that great comedic element but, just to milk the last few drops from that once brimming lake of comedic opportunity. When a male and female soldier obtained permission and spent the night together, were they just a pair of grunts or were they truly United States soldiers? Should the collective term for a small group of male and female soldiers together be an orgy (and the collective noun for a group of male soldiers being a frustation...or another word ending in "-ation")? The public demands to know...!!

vikingBerserker said:

Well, I'll throw this question out to spurn a conversation.

Are their logical fact based reasons why a woman should not fight on the front lines? Thousands of years ago a pretty good argument could be made due to physical reason, but what about today?

I think in WW2 Russian combat woman more then earned their stripes. As of 2008 in the US, females made up 27.2% of law enforcement, and 11.5% of police officers. (FBI - 2008) Is that really any different?

Click to expand...

In a perfect world? No.

In a world in which government bureaucrats implement a form of rigged "fairness" that equates to lowering standards, creating double standards, and refereeing everyone's personal life I think there are plenty of reasons.