CNN Article on Courts-Martial for Pregnancy in Iraq

Just like every other issue in the military...you lose all rights that the people you are defending are guaranteed.

When was the last time an American who cheated on their wife could face prison time? When was the last time you saw a Fortune 500 company take an employee to court for adultery? That is what the military court martial is equal to in the "real" world.

Service before Self is ingrained into every military member. By signing on the dotted line and raising your hand to take an oath for whatever rank, you just agreed to their rules. RIGHT OR WRONG, you agreed to adhere to them!

This might sound harsh, but if you don't like them, then you should leave. If you decide you will adhere to them, then you can't cry foul when it doesn't work for you!
 
sprog said:
Maximus said:
"Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status"
QUOTE]

This is an interesting concept that is bound to have unintended consequences. I wonder what exactly goes into a determination as to if a "personal choice" has been made for a serviceman to change his/her medical status. Clearly pregnacy requires some sort of personal choice, but what about self-inflicted wounds? For example, let's say there is a trooper on the line who is suffering from severe PTSD after being under fire for several months, and one day he is so overwhlemed he shoots himself in the foot to avoid having to go back to the front. This is technically a "personal choice" to change medical status; however, it is also a manifestation of mental illness, which would take the condition outside of a personal choice. Or would it? In previous wars, soldiers would be tried for injuring themselves on purpose. I wonder if this has happened (or could happen) given what we know today about mental illness?

A side note, I admit, but an interesting one regarding the new policy set out in the article.
Click to expand...

I would think that one would be a simple choice, once the member showed signs of mental illness they would need to be hospitalized.
Click to expand...
 
Luigi59 said:
Then the mandatory contraception shot is a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

There are other issues as well, one being that hormonal contraception, unlike vaccines, have a history of side-effects that don't show up right away, some of which are serious. Vaccines, for the most part are get it done, wait a week for reactions and then move on. I think managing the side-effects of ongoing contraception in the field is probably a bigger problem than removing the pregnant soldiers. And you'd be surprised how many women have problems with hormonal contraceptives.
 
RC's may use hormonal birth control - as long as they abstain. :wink:
That said it's not really a "no brainer".

The Depo shot is not without risk. There are some serious side effects in some women to using depo provera and to force all female soldiers (even those who abstain) to take this medication would be bad form for the military and the SCOTUS would probably not take the military's side.

Vascectomy can be reversed. Why don't we require all male soldiers to have a vascetomy prior to deployment? Then they can have it reversed when they return.
 
Yes and no. Not always "adultery" and not always Frat.

Pregnancy would be a pretty clear indication that something happened.
 
Pima said:
Just like every other issue in the military...you lose all rights that the people you are defending are guaranteed.

When was the last time an American who cheated on their wife could face prison time? When was the last time you saw a Fortune 500 company take an employee to court for adultery? That is what the military court martial is equal to in the "real" world.

Service before Self is ingrained into every military member. By signing on the dotted line and raising your hand to take an oath for whatever rank, you just agreed to their rules. RIGHT OR WRONG, you agreed to adhere to them!

This might sound harsh, but if you don't like them, then you should leave. If you decide you will adhere to them, then you can't cry foul when it doesn't work for you!
Click to expand...


The Military defends Democracy, not practices it.

It will at least till "Diversity" comes into play and standards are changed and different for one gender over the other. It's what happens in a politically correct world, the end result will surly take apart the accepted rules and laws. Political Correctness and so called 'fairness' inherently tear apart Society as the end result :shake:

I notice this issue is making the rounds of the "Old Media" and it might get legs, if it does my points will be front and center.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
RC's may use hormonal birth control - as long as they abstain. :wink:
That said it's not really a "no brainer".

The Depo shot is not without risk. There are some serious side effects in some women to using depo provera and to force all female soldiers (even those who abstain) to take this medication would be bad form for the military and the SCOTUS would probably not take the military's side.

Vascectomy can be reversed. Why don't we require all male soldiers to have a vascetomy prior to deployment? Then they can have it reversed when they return.
Click to expand...

Yikes! ...CHARGE!
lol
 
Just_A_Mom said:
RC's may use hormonal birth control - as long as they abstain. :wink:
That said it's not really a "no brainer".

The Depo shot is not without risk. There are some serious side effects in some women to using depo provera and to force all female soldiers (even those who abstain) to take this medication would be bad form for the military and the SCOTUS would probably not take the military's side.

Vascectomy can be reversed. Why don't we require all male soldiers to have a vascetomy prior to deployment? Then they can have it reversed when they return.
Click to expand...

This debate has both medical and legal elements, and I would side with those who oppose the idea of forced contraception.

I don't believe that such a hypothetical case would be granted cert. by the Supreme Court due to the "political question" standing matter (assuming, of course, that the policy was upheld in the lower federal courts). Who knows how the Court would operate in this hypothetical situation, but that would be my guess (they are, however, a very unpredictable group). Thus, it would seem on a purely legal/constitutional basis (as it involves military order and discipline) that such a policy would survive constitutional scrutiny. It is, however, a horrible policy, and certainly not a "no brainer."

Medically-I'm no doctor, but I'm certainly aware of the hormonal side effects associated with BC in general, and vasectomy is only reversible about 50 percent of the time. Thus, there are complications above and beyond feeling sick after a flu shot.

Conclusion-while it may be (in the most hypothetical of worlds) technically legal/constitutional for a commander to impose this, it is in incredible bad form, and there are medical risks associated which could plague the serviceman/woman for the rest of their lives (or, at the very least, decrease their readiness in theater). Regardless, a commander would be committing career suicide if he imposed this, and my guess would be that such a commander would be relieved from duty (especially if the White House and/or media get a hold of it).

The solution to the pregnancy issue is what has been ordered by the General in the article. Allow the UCMJ to punish those who willfully ignore the order. No need for invasive and potentially health-compromising forced contraception.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34524436/ns/us_news-military/

Four female and three male soldiers in northern Iraq have been reprimanded for disobeying a ban on pregnancies, but the general in charge of troops there has backed off an earlier threat of courts-martial and prison time for such cases.
Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo said less severe disciplinary action would be taken.
The four female soldiers were given letters of reprimand that will not be in their permanent military file, Cucolo told the Stars and Stripes military newspaper late Monday. So were two of the male soldiers.
The third male soldier, who is married and impregnated a subordinate, was charged with fraternization and given a permanent letter of reprimand, Cucolo said.
One of the female soldiers declined to say who impregnated her and the unit “let it drop,” Cucolo told Stars and Stripes, adding that he had no plans to further investigate paternity.
'Don't have time' to find dad
“I’m in a war zone,” he said. “I don’t have time for that.”
Cucolo commands some 22,000 soldiers, and nearly 1,700 are female.
“I can’t tell you how valuable my female soldiers are,” Cucolo said. “They fly helicopters. They run satellites. They’re mechanics. They’re medics. Some of the best intelligence analysts I have happen to be female.”
No other units in Iraq have similar rules, Stars and Stripes said, citing military officials. A spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan said no pregnancy ban is in place there.
The ban is part of General Order No. 1, which also bars U.S. troops and civilians attached to the military from consuming alcohol and possessing pornography. It does not ban sex.
Military officials say the order was issued because Army policy requires the force to remove a pregnant soldier from a war zone within 14 days of learning of the pregnancy, creating a hole in a unit that makes it more difficult to complete its mission.
'I need you for the duration'
“The message to my female soldiers is that I need you for the duration,” Cucolo said. “Please think before you act.”
Col. David S. Thompson, the inspector general for all soldiers in Iraq, has called the ban "a lawful order."
Thompson, who has served 29 of the past 39 months in Iraq as an inspector general, told Stars and Stripes that it’s the first time he can recall pregnancy being prohibited.
Click to expand...
 
Just_A_Mom said:
That said it's not really a "no brainer".

The Depo shot is not without risk.
Click to expand...

I suppose the varicella vaccine, the anthrax vaccine, the H1N1 vaccine, the typhoid vaccine, the polio vaccine, the yellow fever vaccine, and the smallpox vaccine are all without risk as well, as they are mandatory for military personnel to maintain a specific readiness level in specific theaters?
 
The difference is they are required of every soldier - not just certain soldiers. They are also required for public health reasons. Vaccinations exist for two reasons - to protect the population and protect the individual. Force protection is the overarching goal.

Mandatory hormonal contraception is far riskier to the female population than those vaccines are and not necessary for force protection.
 
sprog said:
This debate has both medical and legal elements, and I would side with those who oppose the idea of forced contraception.

I don't believe that such a hypothetical case would be granted cert. by the Supreme Court due to the "political question" standing matter (assuming, of course, that the policy was upheld in the lower federal courts). Who knows how the Court would operate in this hypothetical situation, but that would be my guess (they are, however, a very unpredictable group). Thus, it would seem on a purely legal/constitutional basis (as it involves military order and discipline) that such a policy would survive constitutional scrutiny. It is, however, a horrible policy, and certainly not a "no brainer."

Medically-I'm no doctor, but I'm certainly aware of the hormonal side effects associated with BC in general, and vasectomy is only reversible about 50 percent of the time. Thus, there are complications above and beyond feeling sick after a flu shot.

Conclusion-while it may be (in the most hypothetical of worlds) technically legal/constitutional for a commander to impose this, it is in incredible bad form, and there are medical risks associated which could plague the serviceman/woman for the rest of their lives (or, at the very least, decrease their readiness in theater). Regardless, a commander would be committing career suicide if he imposed this, and my guess would be that such a commander would be relieved from duty (especially if the White House and/or media get a hold of it).

The solution to the pregnancy issue is what has been ordered by the General in the article. Allow the UCMJ to punish those who willfully ignore the order. No need for invasive and potentially health-compromising forced contraception.
Click to expand...

Well said.

And BTW, the court actually has a very large number of Catholics on it (maybe a majority?). Would make for an interesting recusal issue...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top