General defends court martial for pregnant soldiers

[Saya]

A US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.
It is current army policy to send pregnant soldiers home, but Maj Gen Anthony Cucolo told the BBC he was losing people with critical skills.
That was why the added deterrent of a possible court martial was needed, he said.
The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.
The male sexual partners of female soldiers who get pregnant would also "face the consequences", he said.
It is the first time the US Army has made pregnancy a punishable offence.

Gen Cucolo told the BBC it was a "black and white" issue for him.
He said married soldiers in combat zones should either put their love lives on hold - or take precautions.
"I've got a mission to do, I'm given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them."
"So I'm going to take every measure I can to keep them all strong, fit and with me for the twelve months we are in the combat zone," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8422989.stm

[Solumina]

Honestly I'm surprised this wasn't on the books years ago, as generally there would be a very strong upsurge in pregnancy rates right before and in the beginning of major deployments. I can understand that people don't like their personal lives to be regulated but contraception is free through military health care (and I am under the impression that you will not face consequences if you are using prescription contraception and it fails) and you get some serious benefits from joining the military so you should have to do the job that you signed up to do.

[Saya]

Do they provide free abortions as well? And don't forget, no contraception is 100% effective, the general doesn't really specify if you don't get punished if you take the pill. Also, not everyone can use prescription drugs for contraception.

[Ben Lahnger]

Yeah, I don't like the idea of it, but there's a reason I never signed up for military service - because it's not a democracy. And it has to be that way to function.

But you make a good point about no form of birth control being 100%. I imagine that the answer will be, "Don't do anything that puts you at risk of getting pregnant, or you run the risk of court martial."

I suspect the same would apply if you did some kind of voluntary freelance work or activity on the side which got you into an accident, wounded and no longer able to serve. It's similar to the types of provisions in pro athletes contracts that restrict them from pursuing risky activities in their personal lives.

I agree it's not fair, but I really wouldn't go looking to the military for fair. If I thought it unjust, I might protest, but I really don't see it as being unjust.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

Do they provide free abortions as well?

I believe that depends on the location but yes at least some military medical facilities do.

Originally Posted by Saya

And don't forget, no contraception is 100% effective, the general doesn't really specify if you don't get punished if you take the pill.

This is true and as I said I believe that you do not get punished if you can prove that you took proper precautions, there is a lot of info swirling about here (high military population) and a lot of it is contradictory so it is hard to figure out what is fact and what is just rumor.

Originally Posted by Saya

Also, not everyone can use prescription drugs for contraception.

Also true but if that is the case then you should know better than to leave things up to chance. This is the military, if you get pregnant then you cannot do your job, in many cases your deployment would be over before you would be able to get back to your job. If you want the benefits of being in the military then you have to do what you have agreed to do or face the consequences, which is why I'm not in the military.

[Renatus]

I must concur with Solumina, people should not get pregnant or get others pregnant just to avoid active duty, its just as bad as injuring yourself on purpose to avoid active duty. At least when you shoot yourself you only really affect yourself, whereas if you get pregnant or get somone else pregnant you affect at least two other people(the mother or father and the unborn child). This is a heck of alot different than when people did it(or was it you simply had to get married?) to avoid the draft, because this is what they signed up for voulentarily.

[Saya]

There's avoiding duty and there's the fact that life happens, and punishing someone for getting pregnant. There's also the big risk of men absolving themselves of responsibility and punishment by denying being the father or saying that they were told that she was on the pill, to avoid a court martial or jail time. Also with the health care debate going on right now and the Republicans wanting to strike abortion out of public funding, it can certainly put abortion out of option for soldiers as well, if it is even an option for soldiers in Iraq right now.

Also its hard to prove that you used a condom, unless you want to be super safe and keep them all in a plastic bag with your DNA all over it just incase you need to prove it.

Not to mention the army is very notorious for dismissing **** victims and punishing them instead of their rapists, this is probably only going to make things worse on that front as well.

[Saya]

Also from what I could find out abortion is banned from military hospitals overseas unless you're going to die or you were r@ped (but if you were r@ped you have to pay out of your own pocket):

http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...nd?page=entire

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

There's avoiding duty and there's the fact that life happens, and punishing someone for getting pregnant.

Other than cases of **** pregnancies are not "life just happening" if soldiers were playing Russian roulette and pointing the gun at their shoulders then they wouldn't get a medical discharge, they were doing something that they well knew could result in something making them unable to perform their duties, pregnancy isn't really any different. Not to mention that this is also a hope to discourage **** as women are more likely to report what happened and who did it, therefore making the men more easily held responsible for their actions, as well as a hope to cut down on prostitution during deployments.

I am in no way saying that the rule is perfect, there are quite a few things that would make it a lot better, but it is an honest attempt to fix a few serious problems.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

Also from what I could find out abortion is banned from military hospitals overseas unless you're going to die or you were r@ped (but if you were r@ped you have to pay out of your own pocket):

This is mainly due to limited resources, which is why the same is not true in facilities that are actually in the US and is something that ideally would be changed but there are a few larger problems that get priority.

[Xombie]

I think this decision is perfectly rational. Women don't just become pregnant by chance, and unless **** is the cause, it can very easily be avoided. Being in the army is a job, and it's irresponsible to consciously do things that put you at risk of not being able to do your job properly, and in this case, do your job at all. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, like you said, having sex at all is risky in this situation. If horny soldiers care more about quenching their perpetual thirst for love juice more than they care about doing their job, they shouldn't be in the army anyway.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Other than cases of **** pregnancies are not "life just happening" if soldiers were playing Russian roulette and pointing the gun at their shoulders then they wouldn't get a medical discharge, they were doing something that they well knew could result in something making them unable to perform their duties, pregnancy isn't really any different.

Do smoking soldiers get court martialed for getting lung cancer?. People get pregnant, and I don't see what throwing pregnant women in jail will accomplish, aside from perhaps making home abortions look a little more appealing.

Not to mention that this is also a hope to discourage **** as women are more likely to report what happened and who did it, therefore making the men more easily held responsible for their actions, as well as a hope to cut down on prostitution during deployments.

I am in no way saying that the rule is perfect, there are quite a few things that would make it a lot better, but it is an honest attempt to fix a few serious problems.

Are you serious? Most men who r@pe don't think it was r@pe, so how would that discourage them at all? Heck even a lot of victims won't call it r@pe. Secondly, the majority of r@pes reported do not end with the r@pist being punished, as of 2007 only 8% of those reported were referred to court martials, despite reporting being on the rise.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/mil...use/index.html

The army does not take r@pe seriously and is more likely to treat the victim like the criminal than the actual r@pist.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Saya

Do smoking soldiers get court martialed for getting lung cancer?. People get pregnant, and I don't see what throwing pregnant women in jail will accomplish, aside from perhaps making home abortions look a little more appealing.

Well comparing lung cancer to pregnancy is like comparing pointing a gun at your head rather than your shoulder. In either case the former is more serious than the latter.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

Most men who r@pe don't think it was r@pe [...] even a lot of victims won't call it r@pe.

Out of curiosity if neither the one r@peing or the one being r@ped see it as r@pe then what makes it r@pe and how the hell are authorities supposed to try and do anything about it?

Originally Posted by Saya

Most men who r@pe don't think it was r@pe, so how would that discourage them at all?

Well for one the simple fact that they would get in trouble for causing a pregnancy is enough to make them reconsider, especially if they don't think it is r@pe.

Originally Posted by Saya

Secondly, the majority of r@pes reported do not end with the r@pist being punished, as of 2007 only 8% of those reported were referred to court martials, despite reporting being on the rise.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/mil...use/index.html

The army does not take r@pe seriously and is more likely to treat the victim like the criminal than the actual r@pist.

Not that I am defending the deplorable rate of r@pe or the lack of judicial action but just throwing out that 8% is a little misleading when even the article that you linked says that nonjudicial measures were taken in an addition 18% (which are only those that are officially reported and while I know that we cannot cite anecdotal information it cannot simply be ignored that unofficial responses to such actions are an ingrained part of military culture). Not to mention the fact that only about 6% of r@pists will ever spend a day in jail so in truth more is being done by those nonjudicial actions than is being done in the civilian world. People also tend to forget that while 4 out of 10 women in the military being r@ped is a terrible number it is also true that 2 out of 3 women who go to college in the US are sexually assaulted (1 in 4 of the general female population) so as far as integrated living among men and women is concerned the military is doing better than the civilian world.

Again I am not trying to defend any lack of accountability or lack of compassion when it comes to r@pe but I do get very sick of people getting up in arms about r@pe in the military when the same is still true of many facets of the civilian world, yet you don't see many people crying out that institutions of higher learning need to be held accountable for their shitty rates (when many more of their incidents could be avoided by honesty and education).

[Solumina]

I know that nobody likes double posts but we seem to be arguing two seperate issues here so I wanted to keep the posts separate.

Originally Posted by Saya

Do smoking soldiers get court martialed for getting lung cancer?. People get pregnant, and I don't see what throwing pregnant women in jail will accomplish, aside from perhaps making home abortions look a little more appealing.

You do know that court martial doesn't always mean jail time, right? There are different levels of court martial and they can range from the equivalent of a misdemeanor to that of a felony and I haven't seen anything that indicates that getting pregnant would result in jail time, more likely it would result in a dishonorable discharge. If you get lung cancer you would get a medical discharge, which is really only marginally better than a dishonorable discharge.

Also I could go on a long rant about military administration and their treatment of those with lung cancer, mostly dealing with them blaming the person for their disease, even if they quit smoking long ago, it really has no relevance to the topics at hand so I'll save that for another time.

[CptSternn]

It's the military. Once you join, you no longer have the rights of an average citizen, therefore arguing the government has taken away someones 'rights' is a moot point - you gave them up when you signed that piece of paper.

There is a whole list of things th enlisted cannot do that the average person is legally allowed to do.

For example, double jeopardy in America does NOT apply to soldiers. They can be tried twice for the same crime, in a normal court and then again in a military court. They can be given two sentences for the same crime as well.

It's what happens when you sign your life away to the military.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Out of curiosity if neither the one r@peing or the one being r@ped see it as r@pe then what makes it r@pe and how the hell are authorities supposed to try and do anything about it?

Really? You never heard of people who couldn't cope with the ****, felt violated but wasn't sure if it was "r@pe r@pe?" Hell even mainstream media can't define r@pe properly, in 2007 Cosmo wrote an article about something they called "gray r@pe", sex that felt wrong but wasn't quite r@pe, you know, like when you get drunk, pass out and there's a guy r@ping you, but thats not really r@pe. I've had girls tell me that their boyfriends r@ped them but they couldn't call it r@pe for a long time because it was their boyfriends and they didn't think it was r@pe under the circumstances (saying no but not fighting back, being asleep, giving in to blackmail), or they felt something was terribly wrong, they felt violated, but just couldn't bring themselves to say "r@pe". There are many reasons why a victim might not be able to call it r@pe, from lack of understanding of what r@pe is, to going into denial about the incident and just wanting to forget about it, to being told by others (friends, the r@pist, Cosmo and Ask Amy) that it wasnt r@pe, I can go on.

What can the army do about it? Fight **** culture, stop this feeling of entitlement, give the victims the care they need. Don't punish them for not being able to come to terms with what happened. Don't ostracize those who report ****

Well for one the simple fact that they would get in trouble for causing a pregnancy is enough to make them reconsider, especially if they don't think it is r@pe.

Punishment isn't a deterrent to r@pe, r@pe is about power and "oh she might get pregnant" isn't going to deter very many r@pists at all, just put more pressure on them to use a condom.

Not that I am defending the deplorable rate of r@pe or the lack of judicial action but just throwing out that 8% is a little misleading when even the article that you linked says that nonjudicial measures were taken in an addition 18% (which are only those that are officially reported and while I know that we cannot cite anecdotal information it cannot simply be ignored that unofficial responses to such actions are an ingrained part of military culture).

Nonjudicial measures means no jail time as it is not considered a conviction.

Not to mention the fact that only about 6% of r@pists will ever spend a day in jail so in truth more is being done by those nonjudicial actions than is being done in the civilian world. People also tend to forget that while 4 out of 10 women in the military being r@ped is a terrible number it is also true that 2 out of 3 women who go to college in the US are sexually assaulted (1 in 4 of the general female population) so as far as integrated living among men and women is concerned the military is doing better than the civilian world.

8% was REFERRED to court martial, it doesn't included acquittal or minor punishments, doesn't mean jail time.

By comparison, she said, 40 percent of those arrested in the civilian world on such charges are prosecuted.

The 4 in 10 number was from a veterans hospital, in actuality its hard to say how many r@pes occur, as the Pentagon was only obliged to keep track in 2006 onwards. However:

They were not exceptions. According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are ***** while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.

Sexual assault covers a lot of things, basically any touching of a sexual nature that is unwanted, for college women its 1 in 4 for **** or attempted ****, so its still less than the army:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/****-prevention/statistics.html

And at least we have resources. There's **** crisis centers on campuses, Safe Walks, and we have the right to abortion and privacy about the condition, we are more likely to get justice, to get help. In the army most victims are silenced and ostracized even if they do report, and if you get pregnant or abort, everyone knows. I once saw A&E present a documentary about the Air Force academy, how women were told to go on the pill because there was no question that they were going to get r@ped. I'm glad that when I first went to university I wasn't told "You will be r@ped, nothing you can do."

Again I am not trying to defend any lack of accountability or lack of compassion when it comes to r@pe but I do get very sick of people getting up in arms about r@pe in the military when the same is still true of many facets of the civilian world, yet you don't see many people crying out that institutions of higher learning need to be held accountable for their shitty rates (when many more of their incidents could be avoided by honesty and education).

Actually all feminists do, and have worked extremely hard to end r@pe everywhere, on campus (especially the Women's Studies departments) and like I said the army has it worse and is the most ignored, you're getting your facts wrong.

[Saya]

Anyway, good news, after the heat the general has backed down and says no serious punishments:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...EedjgD9COIFSG1

So far everyone who got pregnant or impregnated someone just got a letter of reprimand.

[Saya]

Whoops, that quote saying 30% of women soldiers are r@ped is from this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8005198.stm

[Ben Lahnger]

Saw a piece on this on the ABC world news tonight broadcast ... most of the heat was being brought from outside sources like N.O.W. Many of the 22,000 soldiers serving under that general have independently asserted their support for the decision.

One woman currently serving in the area said, "The women in my unit wholeheartedly support this. We're tired of being lumped in with women who are not taking proper care to not become non-deployable." One former female soldier said, "Pregnancy used to be a get out of jail free card only available to women" so in her view this new policy makes men and women more equal.

The reporter in the piece states that there is no intention at this time to jail or dock pay from women who become pregnant, although that is technically an option under the ruling. The letters of reprimand should be the standard going forward and are only meant to be a deterrent.

The general is also quoted twice in the piece.

First, he says, "The message to my female soldiers is ... they are absolutely invaluable. I need them for the entire duration of this deployment ... my female soldiers are some of my most brilliant ... I do not want to lose anyone."

And later, in response to questions about pressure from N.O.W. he responds, "I got it, here's the deal. I am the one who is responsible and accountable. The National Organization for Women is not. Critics are not. I have to accomplish a very complex mission."

He's right. The soldiers serving under him, men and women, know he's right. The outside critics should butt out in this matter.

The very important issue of whether r@pe is treated seriously in the military is a separate issue, and definitely deserves attention. But it should not be lumped into this.

SOURCE

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Saw a piece on this on the ABC world news tonight broadcast ... most of the heat was being brought from outside sources like N.O.W. Many of the 22,000 soldiers serving under that general have independently asserted their support for the decision.

One woman currently serving in the area said, "The women in my unit wholeheartedly support this. We're tired of being lumped in with women who are not taking proper care to not become non-deployable." One former female soldier said, "Pregnancy used to be a get out of jail free card only available to women" so in her view this new policy makes men and women more equal.

Its not really equal since the women are the one who are getting pregnant to begin with. Anyway "I'm a woman but totally for punishing women for being pregnant" isn't exactly a pro-woman stance. And of course this adds to the belief that women will just get pregnant to get out of the army, which I'm sure happens but no need to treat every pregnancy like a get out of the army free card and every woman who becomes pregnant is a slut who just doesn't want to work.

And later, in response to questions about pressure from N.O.W. he responds, "I got it, here's the deal. I am the one who is responsible and accountable. The National Organization for Women is not. Critics are not. I have to accomplish a very complex mission."

He's right. The soldiers serving under him, men and women, know he's right. The outside critics should butt out in this matter.

Except the soldiers that you depend on to accomplish this mission would stand to lose their jobs or go to jail even if thats not his current intention, to make matters worse for pregnant soldiers. No one is safe from criticism especially since the men and women under him are considered his property. Yay for supporting the troops...until it comes to them getting knocked up!

Not to mention, you know, this Iraq War thing? Its not all about him.

The very important issue of whether r@pe is treated seriously in the military is a separate issue, and definitely deserves attention. But it should not be lumped into this.

It definitely should and is absolutely necessary, its not even that its not treated seriously but is so rampant but hushed, and since r@pe can you know, lead to pregnancy.

[Ben Lahnger]

Yeah, I'm acknowledging that, but if there's a r@pe involved, that should be the issue, not this policy.

And you are totally sidestepping the fact that the soldiers involved, who have an enlightened self-interest to know what provides them with the best security, are saying they agree with the policy and think it is necessary. They would know better than you or me.

[Xombie]

Originally Posted by Saya

Its not really equal since the women are the one who are getting pregnant to begin with. Anyway "I'm a woman but totally for punishing women for being pregnant" isn't exactly a pro-woman stance. And of course this adds to the belief that women will just get pregnant to get out of the army, which I'm sure happens but no need to treat every pregnancy like a get out of the army free card and every woman who becomes pregnant is a slut who just doesn't want to work.

Women here are not just being punished for being pregnant. The ones who are becoming pregnant just to avoid being deployed are obviously at fault, but even those for which that isn't the intention are also being irresponsible, because they know that there is a possibility of becoming pregnant, and that, in such a situation, they could not possibly continue with their job. They are being punished for knowingly putting their ability to do their job in danger.