Posted on 02/24/2013 5:39:59 AM PST by IbJensen
(Kayla Williams, a former sergeant with the U.S. Army, spoke in favor of the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat units on Feb. 21, 2013 at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.)
(CNSNews.com) - At an event to discuss the merits of lifting the ban on women serving in combat units in the U.S. military, a retired Army sergeant said that hygiene issues are not a problem, including menstrual cycles, which she said can be regulated or eliminated by using birth control.
“Women can use hormonal birth control to regulate or eliminate their periods during deployment,” Kayla Williams said in remarks on Thursday at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C. “It’s just not that hard.”
Williams and Michael Breen, a former U.S. Army officer and executive director of the Truman National Security Project, argued that the new policy would strengthen the military and that hygiene and privacy were not legitimate reasons to oppose the change.
“What about the hygiene issue?” Williams said. “Look, frankly I don’t even know what that means.
“People say this in this hushed tone as if the vagina is a secret,” Williams said. “If women died without access to indoor plumbing, the human species would not have survived long enough to develop showers.”
Williams said the military already has equipment designed to make hygiene easier for women in the field, including the female urinary device, or FUD, that allows women to urinate while standing or void into a bottle.
Michael Breen, a former U.S. Army officer, spoke in favor of the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat units on Feb. 21, 2013 at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Breen said privacy concerns don’t really exist in combat scenarios.
“My own experience in combat with a bunch of different units tells me that all of these worries for guys go out the window, basically, as soon as you are in an environment like that,” Breen said. “You just stop caring. And I realize that that may be difficult to understand. This is an environment where concerns like who sees who go to the bathroom in the field. This is just not at the top of your mind.
“Believe me,” Breen said. “You’re looking for sleep. You’re looking for food. You’re trying not to get your head blown off.”
Privacy was a concern, however, when the Defense Department issued a memorandum on Jan. 13, 1994, which ruled that “women shall be excluded from units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.”
The memo went on to list the restrictions, including the need for privacy and skills “where job-related requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women Service members.”
The fact that women would be required to spend long periods of time in the field with men was also cited as a reason for women not to serve in combat units.
Two times in the memo it is stated that this ban would be “expanding opportunities for women” by more clearly defining combat units as the one area where females could not serve.
In a press release distributed at the event, the lifting of the combat exclusion rule is described as a decision that “brings policy in line with reality.”
The press release states that more than 280,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some 150 women killed while serving and more than 800 who received the Purple Heart for being wounded while deployed.
So a women goes into a combat unit, takes birth control and hormones to regulate her period. Spends two or three years and then files for a disability because of the effects the birth control and hormones had on her. Good deal!
And create further medical problems for the taxpayers to fund.
Not every woman can tolerate every single form of birth control. Many of them go on this stuff and come whining back that it causes them too much nausea, headaches, or irregular bleeding and spotting and DEMAND other forms of BC.
But, I guess our so-called political “experts” know everything there is to know about healthcare also ....so we should just shut up and listen to them. :rollseyes:
They can BE men.
How did Kayla Williams become an expert on battlefield conditions? Where has she fought?
Maybe the Army could brainwash male soldiers “Shallow Hal” style into to seeing beautiful women as Helen Thomas look alikes.
Interesting, I’ve never heard of birth control that eliminates a woman’s period, just ovulation.
Well anyway, long term use of such a method must be extremely dangerous to the woman’s health. Yikes....
I am not politically correct.
Women are weaker than men, physically and emotionally, and should not be in combat. Yeah, I know, go find me that one woman who is 5’11”, 190 and can do more physically than a 5’8”, 160lb man. I’ll show you 10,000 men who can do more than her.
The US military is not a social experiment. It is the defender of our country.
No front-line sex babies!
Yeah, quite a few have come out over the last decade or so; women can avoid cycles for months on end. Fascinatingly, those same controls have also suffered some class-action suits around blood clots, etc. But, Dr’s claim it isn’t necessary for a woman to have a monthly cycle, perfectly harmless to suppress them.
How do they propose to make up for the difference in physical strength? Steroids? They do not care for women or our troops, just grinding everything down until all is ‘equal’.
just get that addadicktome you’ve been hankerin’ for, there Maxine.
Liberal moonbats are whacked. Just why do these asshats feel they must project the sick wanderings of their abnormal minds onto society? Liberals...face it...you are whacked.
Oh, swell. Then you have a lot of female soldiers who are constantly depressed and overweight. Just great.
Probably won’t be an issue. I figure most women will go in for the training and then just get pregnant before being deployed anyway
Wow, can this be done *without* combat? Just askin’, no reason.
Thanks IbJensen.
The Communist Takeover of America: 45 Declared Goals (Congressional Record, 1963)
[...female urinary device, or FUD...]
Now they did it, it won’t be long before a lesbian activist appears before a Senate committee demanding their FUDS.
Thanks for the info.
Who knows what the long term effects are. I wouldn’t want my daughter or anyone’s daughter being the guinea pigs.
That said, woman are just built differently. Their upper body strength is less than a mans. Can you imagine a woman trying to carry a fellow soldier out from the line of fire?
This administration is hell bent on destroying this Nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.