US Army covers up an ‘embarrassment’ (Pregnancies)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/743101.cms ^ | THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2004

[take]

US Army covers up an ‘embarrassment’

WASHINGTON: Many US women soldiers in Iraq are leaving the frontline and returning home, but the Pentagon does not want to reveal their numbers as the “embarassing” statistic includes unwed mothers, media reported on Wednesday.

“US Central Command is not tracking the number of troops who must leave the Iraq war theatre due to pregnancy, prompting military advocates to charge that the Pentagon wants to keep secret what could be an embarrassing statistic,” The Washington Times said.

The paper said that there have been anecdotal reports of unmrried women soldiers becoming pregnant in Iraq. One military police unit reported losing three women for that reason. Lynndie England, the 21-year-old photographed holding a leash attached to a naked Iraqi prisoner, became pregnant during an affair with another soldier at the Abu Ghraib prison compound in Iraq, it said.

But overall numbers are hard to come by. “We are definitely not tracking it,” said a spokesman for US Central Command, which runs the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I have been attending operations briefings for two years, and I don’t think I have heard once that pregnancy has come up.”

As in the case of England, said the paper, pregnancies can be embarrassing to the military. In May 2003, the Marine Corps was forced to bring a Marine back home after she gave birth on a Navy warship in the Persian Gulf. She told superiors that she did not know she was pregnant.

Meanwhile, among the British forces in southern Iraq, 82 women were sent home last year after discovering they were pregnant, reported the London Daily Telegraph, quoting government numbers.

A presidential commission in 1992 found that pregnancy was a main reason why the non-deployability rate for female troops was three times higher than for men during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf conflict.

[familyop]

"Two words: Jimmy hat."

I doubt very much that our government has enough money to afford enough of those to even appreciatively cut the pregnancy rate. Enough of those for one would probably cost enough to cost one family into bankruptcy.

[familyop]

"Oh, I thought you said to clean my GUN, Sergeant."

ROFL! That reminds me of when the Fox News chick got all excited and announced about Jessica Lynch something like, "She shot her gun until it was out of bullets!"

...revulsion at either of those two thoughts!

[horatio]

I couldn't agree with you more. Drum 'em out of the service.

[JudgemAll]

What is worrying is the parallel between an army afraid of muslims and now afraid of feminists... what an army. THere is no limit to this blackmail in sight.

[VeniVidiVici]

That being said, don't forget that the pregnant woman is no less at fault than the man who fathered the child

Yes, the man is less at fault.

The female engaged in conduct that prevents her from carring out her duties, and makes her non-deployable. Her getting pregnant does not make her male suitor any less deployable nor does it gain him an automatic rotation back to the States as it does her.

Of course, he should be responsible for the child. But what usually happens is the woman has an abortion shortly after rotation or getting out.

Woman have been getting pregnant to get out of assignments for a long time.

Understand I'm just addressing the subject at hand. I could care less how they choose to get out. Though I don't agree that they should be in frontline units.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Wonder how much of this is due to "emergency sex"?

[hoosierpearl]

Years ago I had a history teacher that wanted to talk about this issue in history class. The pregnancy issue with all its ramifications was my argument in saying this is not a good idea. What I got from my teacher and other students is Nah, it will never happen.

[wardaddy]

Yep...fools all.

[wardaddy]

makes me want to weep....

it'll take a million casualties to undo that kind of garbage.

[af_vet_rr]

How about dishonorable discharges for all of them unless they can prove they were impregnated by their husbands before leaving for duty?

If your talking about adultery (which while it's ignored in civilian society, can get you in hot water in the military), it would not go over well unless you prosecuted the men.

Which I'm actually all for - when I was in, I knew of too many men cheating on their wives. Rarely were they prosecuted either (neither were the women who were cheating on their husbands).

The way I saw it, if they would cheat on their spouses, they were liable to cheat elsewhere (say something involving their job, which could get others killed).

Unfortunately, a certain former Commander-in-Chief made it fashionable to cheat and get away with, and so those who would cheat might claim they were just following his example.

[NJ_gent]

"The female engaged in conduct that prevents her from carring out her duties, and makes her non-deployable."

Sex doesn't prevent a woman from carrying out her duties any more than it does a man. Getting pregnant isn't a choice, it's the result of conduct contrary to the UCMJ, of which they're both subject, and which they both must violate in order for her to become pregnant. They both break the code, they should both face a military court.

"Woman have been getting pregnant to get out of assignments for a long time."

We have a volunteer military. Your statement paints a broad brush over the women of this country, making them out to be little more than adventurous vixens who escape real work by becoming baby-making whores. While there are certainly some women who likely have tried to get pregnant to get out of a job they no longer want to do, the fact remains that they're unable to do so without the help of an irresponsible male who's willing to violate the code he swore an oath to uphold.

By making the men out to be less culpable, you're also saying that they are incapable of personal responsibility. Understand, the issue I'm addressing is purely based on the violations of the UCMJ required to get into this situation of pregnancy-based rotations. I say, charge the woman with the relevant charges, then run a paternity test on the baby so you can charge the correct male who also violated the UCMJ. My concern is with enforcement of the UCMJ so that when the bullets and bombs start flying, we don't have our real troops' lives in hands of a bunch of irresponsible, oversexed idiots. The code exists for a reason, and that reason is to save lives. Those who break that code need to pay the price, whatever their gender.

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

I was in the army mostly during peace time, and when the unit went to California for a month deployment and training most of the women got pregnant, and most of them not all of them, 2 weeks after the unit was gone well lets say they were not pregnant anymore

Yep, when I was in 3rd ID, I saw the same thing. Kinda makes one wonder about the dedication of our female troops if they are willing to get knocked up simply to avoid a 30 day training exercise.

[BurbankKarl]

Is abortion legal in the military?

[patton]

This is not new - when I attended the Defense Language Institute in 1982, you would not believe the level of activity...

[TomasUSMC]

Add 9 months to enlistment and freeze time in grade and advancement tests for every pregnancy.

[VeniVidiVici]

Getting pregnant isn't a choice, it's the result of conduct contrary to the UCMJ, of which they're both subject, and which they both must violate in order for her to become pregnant.

Sure. Non-judicial both of them. The guy still stays in theater and the female rotates out. What's the difference? You put men and women together and it's going to happen. Nothing, will stop it. That's part of the arguement against having women in some units.

"Woman have been getting pregnant to get out of assignments for a long time."

We have a volunteer military. Your statement paints a broad brush over the women of this country, making them out to be little more than adventurous vixens who escape real work by becoming baby-making whores.

Sorry. I said women because they are the only ones that can get pregnant. Obviously, not all women are like that. But I have known and have seen many that are. If you have a difficulty believing that, well, if you were in the military I guess you were in a line unit. The important distinction here is that while both guys and girls like to have sex, only the woman can make the choice to have sex to get out of the service.

Understand, the issue I'm addressing is purely based on the violations of the UCMJ required to get into this situation of pregnancy-based rotations.

And this thread is about the rate of pregnancy in the military, not whether the UCMJ should be enforced on sexual misconduct. Though I'm of the mind that no matter what the punishment is men and women will continue to have sex. Here is a good article I stumbled across:

http://adnetsolfp2.adnetsol.com/ssl_claremont/publications/owens2.cfm

[LetsRok]

Commiting adultery does not prevent one from performing the duties you were trained and paid for. Getting pregnant does. Yes, there is a double standard.

[af_vet_rr]

Commiting adultery does not prevent one from performing the duties you were trained and paid for. Getting pregnant does. Yes, there is a double standard.

True, but it is against the UCMJ, and when one is willing to ignore one or more laws, chances are they won't have problems ignoring others (which can affect your duties).

It can create a situation where if it is somebody higher up in the chain, those underneath may not feel the need to follow the rules/laws. I'd bet some have tried to use Clinton's behavior as Commander-in-Chief to justify their transgressions.

It can also impact unit cohesion if it involves people/spouses inside of the same unit (especially if it's a mixing of officers/enlisted).

I'm an old fuddy-duddy when it comes to this thing - I believe if you would break your wedding vows, then you would have no problems breaking any oath or rules you don't care about.