General bans pregnancy

[James48843]

U.S. personnel in Iraq could face court-martial for getting pregnant



By Teri Weaver (weavert@pstripes.osd.mil), Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Army general commanding U.S. forces in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the list of prohibitions for personnel under his command.

The policy, which went into effect Nov. 4, makes it possible to face punishment, including a court-martial and jail time, for becoming pregnant or impregnating a servicemember, according to the wording of the policy and confirmations from Army officials.

The rule governs all those serving under Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, who commands Multi-National Division-North, including Balad, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Mosul and Samarra. According to the order, it is “applicable to all United States military personnel, and to all civilians, serving with, employed by, or accompanying” the military in northern Iraq, with few exceptions.

Someone would violate the policy by “becoming pregnant, or impregnating a soldier, while assigned to the Task Force Marne (Area of Operations), resulting in the redeployment of the pregnant soldier,” according to the order.

The policy also applies to married couples who are at war together, Army spokesman Maj. Lee Peters told Stars and Stripes in an e-mail message. Both the husband and wife could face punishment under the policy.

Peters said that, despite the broad wording of the policy, it is meant to apply only when pregnancies affect a unit’s ability to perform its mission.

“When a soldier becomes pregnant or causes a soldier to become pregnant through consensual activity,” Peters said, “the redeployment of the pregnant soldier creates a void in the unit and has a negative impact on the unit’s ability to accomplish its mission. Another soldier must assume the pregnant soldier’s responsibilities.”

No one has been punished or accused under the new policy, according to Col. David S. Thompson, the inspector general for all soldiers in Iraq.

Military staff judge advocates for both MND-North and Multi-National Force Iraq have reviewed and approved the policy, according to Peters and Thompson.

“It is a lawful order,” Thompson said Friday during a phone interview.

Thompson, who has served 29 of the past 39 months in Iraq as an inspector general, said it’s the first time he can recall pregnancy being prohibited.

Armywide policy requires that a pregnant soldier in Iraq be removed from the war theater within 14 days.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School and is president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said he understands the motivations of the order.

“You have to assume it’s in response to a number of incidents that have caused female GIs to be sidelined at a time when they can’t be spared,” he said.

But he said the prohibition is fraught with “a mare’s nest of legal, ethical and policy issues” that highlight the discord between personal autonomy and military needs.
“Here you really have issues that go to the core of personal integrity: reproductive rights,” he said.

There are also issues of enforcement, Fidell said. The woman is immediately suspect once the pregnancy comes to light, but unless she identifies her partner, the male could go unpunished despite bearing the same culpability under the order.

Stars and Stripes reporter Megan McCloskey contributed to this report.
Source:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66764

[nnuut]

I remember when women in the Military were DISCHARGED if they got Pregnant.

[alevin]

I remember when women in the Military were DISCHARGED if they got Pregnant.

would that have been when we were not in a war and "stop-loss" situation, nnuut? My sister asked and got a discharge from the Navy when she was pregnant, she worked practically up to delivery date, night shift on another island, Navy husband worked day shift-early 80s.

She first requested a change in duty hours so there would be some overlap at home for her and her husband facing early childcare situation. Navy refused to change duty hours, so she and her husband decided to live on one enlisted paycheck. They managed to get by but it wasn't ideal way to cope and raise family.

[nnuut]

would that have been when we were not in a war and "stop-loss" situation, nnuut? My sister asked and got a discharge from the Navy when she was pregnant, she worked practically up to delivery date, night shift on another island, Navy husband worked day shift-early 80s.

She first requested a change in duty hours so there would be some overlap at home for her and her husband facing early childcare situation. Navy refused to change duty hours, so she and her husband decided to live on one enlisted paycheck. They managed to get by but it wasn't ideal way to cope and raise family.
That was back in the mid 60s Mam!

[Show-me]

That rumor went around when I was in the Gulf, my CO refused to take any women. Guess he did not want to deal with it.

[James48843]

The question needs to be asked- exactly where are you going to imprison all these women once they have been courts-martialed, and found guilty of violating orders.

And further, what do you think an order like this will do to the abortion rate? Does anyone not think that someone caught up in a situation here will rush to get a short leave to leave the country, and go "get it take care of" before anyone finds out?

Bad policy, if you ask me.

While pregnant soldiers leaving adversely impacts the ability to do the mission, you have to understand the moral consequences of such an order- not only among the soldiers, but how that is perceived by the rest of the world as well. Didn't we just say that women's rights were part of what our soldiers in Afghanistan were trying to fix?

And this is only limited to soldiers under this one general's command.


Bad policy here. Needs to be revisited by higher authorities.

[phil]

Yes. It needs to be examined. What is it that we're saying here by this policy? Either, we take a principled stance on this, or we make changes. One piece of advice is to simply require females to have an injection that would make them infertile for 3-4 months at a time, conversely there may be a chemical equivalent for the males.

At a million dollars a soldier for one year......that's not too much added on.

[Show-me]

Yes, what do you do when the pregnancy rate skyrockets prior to a combat deployment.

I have seen it first hand, more gaming the system. Bad conduct discharge works for me.

[alevin]

It still takes 2. And if it's not consensual, then this policy puts the burden of proof on the victim. How's that go again in our justice system? So now the victim has to prove they aren't guilty and that it wasn't consensual? Talk about piling injury upon injury on the victim! Granted that might be the minority case, but still.....it's bad policy all around.

[Birchtree]

My daughter was an Army company commander all of last year and yes some females end up pregnant prior to a deployment - that means someone else has to fill that slot. It does happen so a policy was warranted.

[Steadygain]

U.S. personnel in Iraq could face court-martial for getting pregnant

The Army general commanding U.S. forces in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the list of prohibitions for personnel under his command.

The policy, which went into effect Nov. 4, makes it possible to face punishment, including a court-martial and jail time, for becoming pregnant or impregnating a servicemember, according to the wording of the policy and confirmations from Army officials.

When stationed where the potential for frost bite was a likely possibility we were trained on ways to 'avoid it' and told at the end of our training that anyone who got frost bitten would be charged for destruction of government property. We knew getting hurt would not result in sympathy and anything that took from our ability to remain 100% focused was WRONG.

I personally felt that was the most appropriate action and by far the best message to give across the board. We were soldiers before we were anything else and it was 'our responsibility' to remain in top fighting condition.

Women have more than proven their status as 'worthy soldiers' in every way I could imagine. They are 'combat soldiers' actively engaged in an ongoing war if they are in Iraq/Afgan and I believe a policy like this is an appropriate Military Decision. This kind of policy would all the more hopefully keep the Men from 'using them'.

I have no problem with Women in the Service -- but I do have a problem with any of them trying to become pregnant while serving actively as a soldier in an ongoing war. To me there is simply no place for this - and this would be far more appreciated if they were more collectively involved with Fighting Operations.

It may be the most effective way of implementing this policy is by reinforcing the 'equality' women have in every operation. When I know my life depends on her and her life depends on me and she is doing everything I am doing then she is fully a soldier and should be regarded as such.

Anyway -- I believe if female soldiers were increasingly allowed to function as male soldiers - this would be less and less of a problem.

Maybe this is more a reflection of how poorly the Military overall has done with the female soldiers in general.

[Steadygain]

My sister asked and got a discharge from the Navy when she was pregnant, she worked practically up to delivery date, night shift on another island, Navy husband worked day shift-early 80s.

She first requested a change in duty hours so there would be some overlap at home for her and her husband facing early childcare situation. Navy refused to change duty hours, so she and her husband decided to live on one enlisted paycheck. They managed to get by but it wasn't ideal way to cope and raise family.

Alevie,
I wholly believe any woman in the Service who is currently pregant should be stationed outside of a war zone. The life of the 'unborn child' should take priority over everything else.

Your sister proved her committment to the highest possible degree and should have been recognized accordingly. I believe anyone who lives up to the calling should be treated with the highest regard. The Service 'can' fail the 'soldier' and if that happens it's wrong. They expect the BEST from us and we should always expect the BEST from them.

It has to go both ways -- the more the Government does its part and proves its committment the better off everyone is.

[alevin]

Not disagreeing someone who gets pregnant on purpose while deployed or when facing deployment, should not go/stay in war zone. If they're gaming the system, that must be dealt with appropriately. Yeah, they became .gov property when they signed up. Yes it does create difficulty when there's a war on and no quick replacements, not to mention the investment in training that person and getting them over there. Trouble is, how does one determine if they damaged .gov property deliberately unless they fess up?

It still takes 2, b/c does fail sometimes even when used properly (I knew a young non-military married couple years ago who were stunned and disbelieving when it happened to them), and women are not always willing participants in the situation. Dishonorable discharge is only one option. General discharge is another when intent is in doubt. The other participant is equally responsible for "results and damage".

This "blame the "female only" dishonorable discharge attitude assumes intent was to cop out, is sounding like old old days when only the female involved paid the price-got fired or moved to another department at lower pay, less responsibility after the boss's wife found out. Get her out of the war zone one way or another, yes.

If military women get too scared of what might happen if anything goes wrong with bc or with new acquaintences, then fewer children will be born to military members and families-make it easier on family budgets certainly.

[Steadygain]

Thanks for your response Alevie ;) I see where you're comming from.

Unfortunately as hard as women strive for equality it doesn't look like the men in charge will ever let that happen. :mad: Somehow the system will let a few be flagged as 'The potiential we offer' to openly project some BS for the rest.

You're right 'women' will be unfairly targeted and priorities will largely remain screwed up. The women won't lose there beneifits as Veterans, however, because I see a huge amount of veterans that were booted for everything imaginable -- stripped down to E1 and everything else.

The 'Dishonorable Discharge' is a whole other matter :mad: and one that basically doesn't exist and has not existed for many years. You have General under 'less than honorable' and they get the exact same benefits as 'Honorable'. It's crazy Alevie so in the since I think you're voicing an objection ~~ I agree.

[alevin]

You're right 'women' will be unfairly targeted and priorities will largely remain screwed up. The women won't lose there beneifits as Veterans, however, because I see a huge amount of veterans that were booted for everything imaginable -- stripped down to E1 and everything else.

The 'Dishonorable Discharge' is a whole other matter :mad: and one that basically doesn't exist and has not existed for many years. You have General under 'less than honorable' and they get the exact same benefits as 'Honorable'. It's crazy Alevie so in the since I think you're voicing an objection ~~ I agree.

Well, ok. I didn't know Dishonorable had gone the way of the dodo bird. that makes it a little bit better. :suspicious:

[Frixxxx]

This my my weapon, this is my gun.....This is for fighting...and this is for...um...what was that General??....oh....nevermind......:nuts:

[James48843]

...
The 'Dishonorable Discharge' is a whole other matter :mad: and one that basically doesn't exist and has not existed for many years. You have General under 'less than honorable' and they get the exact same benefits as 'Honorable'. It's crazy Alevie so in the since I think you're voicing an objection ~~ I agree.

That simply is not correct, Steady. People are given dishonorable discharges today all the time.

Here are two very recent examples: http://www.stripes.com/m/article.asp?section=104&article=63708 for a soldier found guilty of manslaughter in an accidental death, and

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/10/ap_budwah_guilty_plea_102109/
for a Marine found guilty of wearing medals he was not authorized to wear, and claiming PTSD when he was never deployed to a combat zone.

Both were given dishonorable discharges.


The point is that if the person is convicted by Courts-martial of the offense of disobeying a lawful order, there are only two choices that the court would give- either a dishonorable discharge, or a bad conduct discharge- as they would be convicted of disobeying the lawful order. That is significantly differnet than getting a general discharge under honorable conditions, as would likely be the case by someone getting pregnant and being evacuated out of theather and discharged.


There are five types of discharges available to the military when a soldier is no longer going to actively serve, and they appear below along with a brief explanation of each:
Honorable discharge – Generally, an honorable discharge is administered when a soldier has received ratings that range from good to excellent. All duty commitments have been met, and all time served. This type is also usually awarded when a soldier has become disabled because of an injury suffered in the line of duty or when the soldier has received awards for courage while in action.
General discharge under honorable conditions – A general discharge is administered when a soldier has generally lived up to the standards of his or her branch of the military, but has not competed his/her obligations. Usually, this type of discharge is ordered when a soldier has not completed his or her time commitment to active service.
Other than honorable discharge – An other than honorable discharge is usually the choice of military leadership when a soldier had engaged in some sort of relatively mild misconduct or encountered problems with security.
Bad conduct discharge – A bad conduct discharge is usually the result of serious misconduct and/or criminal activity that leads to a general or special court-martial proceeding. It’s common for a bad conduct discharge to follow a period of confinement upon a conviction of a crime or violation of the UMJC.
Dishonorable discharge – A dishonorable discharge is often the final result of the aftermath of a general court-martial proceeding. These types of discharges can have serious and long-lasting effects on the life of the soldier after his or her time in the military has passed.
Only the last two can be given as part of a sentence by a Courts-Martial. They are not typically administratively given, but rather are sentences of the court.

[Steadygain]

Sorry James, and thanks for the clarification.

YES -- I actually did know of the 5 types of Discharge.


To me personally there is either Honorable - which you get for fulfilling your committment with Honor and Integrity and you proved yourself from day one --- all the way to the end.

Or Dishonorable -- which in my opinion should go to all the ones guilty of going AWOL; fighting their Superiors; refusing to take orders; refusing to go to formation and refusing to do the wide variety of jobs they were expected to do; repeatedly getting drunk and using/selling drugs; spending a week or so in Boot Camp and quitting .... or quitting when they felt like it.

All I know is combat readiness and being a combat soldier and I have no clue what it's like to be anything else. If anyone is deemed appropriate for WAR -- then they should first and foremost be trained and ready to committ on the highest levels or they shouldn't go. I think all should be given an equal opportunity and anyone and everyone that has proved themselves worthy should be honed to the highest degree.

So I guess what I'm saying is the overwhelming bulk of people that in my opinion did not serve 'Honorably' -- and in fact were stipped of rank and 'booted out' all have the equivalent of an Honorable.

There are numerous ways the Military could be changed to make it more fit for those who honestly are willing to serve. I have a problem with the ones who joined but fought against serving and not only refused to serve but deliberately did things to avoid serving.

That took me to the initial idea here. If 'women' are trying to get pregnant to break their committment because they are engaged in a war - then I believe that is wrong.

I would prefer WORLD PEACE -- and no war. But if there are wars and if a person has 'joined' and committed themselves then I believe they need to live up to that committment.

So my statement may have sounded like 'an exaggeration' but I know what I've seen over many years....

[Birchtree]

There is no reason in the world today for there to be an unwanted pregnancy - birth control is available to everyone and often free. It's a voluntary military and if the female soldier wants out - get out no problem. Captain 'Buzz' was stop loss for an extra year and rarely complained. Her Battalion commander offered to try and get her a teaching assignment at West Point if she would re-up for another three years. She sacrificed a $30K bonus and a captains course at Fort Sam - she was determined to get out and get on with her life. She is now walking the financial district in Chicago dropping off her resume. But she is free and so far no regretts. She has signed up with an Army Reserve unit in the Chicago area - her leadership skills are a value. I know all about pregnant PFCs that miss home.

[burrocrat]

lets see if i understand, first one gets discharged in, then one gets discharged out, that hole concienstious objector thing sound like fun.

maybe they could be housed in chicago? i hear there's a couple of them projects not fully occupied now that the olympic earmark real estate play didn't float.