U.S. babies in a war zone? Jane Chastain blasts military's policy on women personnel

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, June 19, 2003 | Jane Chastain

[JohnHuang2]

The military's policy on women service members is broken and must be fixed! Last week's disclosure that a Marine staff sergeant gave birth on the USS Boxer – an amphibious assault ship stationed in the Persian Gulf – should set off alarm bells.

This is believed to be the first active-duty woman to deliver a baby on a combat ship in a war zone.

Washington Times writer Rowan Scarborough, following up on a tip to Center for Military Readiness, disclosed that this birth occurred on May 23, at 10:58 p.m., to a 33-year-old woman who is assigned to Headquarters Battery of the11th Marines as an administrative chief.

Move over Jessica Lynch! Can you see it? Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer racing to knit a pair of booties or maybe a little sweater to send to the new mum in an effort to land the first interview and CBS scurrying to line-up writers for a two-hour documentary. Let's not forget the movie rights ... then again, maybe not.

After Scarborough's inquiry, the Marines dutifully put out a short press release announcing the blessed event, but the story was buried.

Could it be that the media is not anxious to call attention to the fact that the military's policy on pregnancy and the assignment of women in the services is not only misguided, it's completely unenforceable?

The Pentagon is reporting that this Marine told superiors that she "did not know she was pregnant." Duh!

The baby was a seven-pound boy. That's full-term! You would think that nine months of missed periods would have been a clue that something was amiss. What about bouts of sluggishness, morning sickness, sore breasts – and, in the later months, the baby's movements and kicks?

Of course she knew, but what about the rest of the crew? What about her expanding belly? Were the Marine officers on that ship so cowed by a few feminists in their midst that they looked the other way when this sergeant began putting on weight, or was the whole boat grossly overweight and out of shape? What about morning drills?

Much of the problems with pregnancy and the assignment of women in the services can be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration which had little use for the military and used it as a laboratory for social experimentation.

Clinton's defense secretary, Les Aspin, did everything he could to advance the theory that men and women are interchangeable fungibles. He rewrote the regs, eliminating the "risk rule," that had prevented women from being assigned to combat zones and his secretary of the Navy, John Dalton, exacerbated the problem by issuing a set of directives – which also cover the Marine Corps – that allows women to serve aboard ships through the 20th week of pregnancy. An excellent analysis of the Dalton policy is available from the Center for Military Readiness.

A servicewoman who suspects she is pregnant is "responsible" for prompt confirmation and notification of her commanding officer, but there is no penalty for violating the notification provision and there is no mandatory test for pregnancy before deployment. It's just another version of "don't ask, don't tell."

The Dalton directive states that pregnancy is "a natural event that can occur in the lives of Navy and Marine corps servicewomen." However, whether a pregnancy should be viewed as a "natural event" aboard warships is quite another matter.

A warship in a battle zone is subject to attack, and women – particularly pregnant women – are not as physically capable as men of surviving such an attack. This puts their shipmates at greater risk.

Why did this Marine hide her pregnancy? Extra pay, or some misguided notion that she was irreplaceable, or somehow furthering the advancement of women's rights perhaps? We may never know.

However, the fact that her commanding officers looked the other way and allowed this woman to stay aboard ship should not come as a big surprise. The Dalton policy states: "Medical limitations, assignment restrictions, and /or periods of absence due to pregnancy or associated medical care shall not be the basis for downgrading marks or adverse comments." This effectively put a gag order on all service members. Anyone who commented negatively on this woman's "delicate condition" could be severely punished.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., has called for a vigorous inquiry and debate about military personnel policies. It is time – past time – that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., begin debate on this failed policy now. Military advocacy groups, veterans' groups and pro-family groups should demand it.

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, June 19, 2003

Quote of the Day by Elkiejg

[Thorondir]

It cannot be said enought times. They don't belong. They drag morale and discipline down. They weaken the military and endanger our mnation.

The PC bull$hit has got to come to an end before it brings us to an end.

[boxerblues]

God forbid something had happened to the baby while she was deployed. This mother would of been the first to cry out that the military was somehow responsiable, even though she claims she didnt know she was pg (yea right)

[TalBlack]

Nothing will stop this PC madness until the US military is HUMILIATED on the battlefield due to low morale, low preformance standards both mental and physical. Consider: Every day troops are expected to salute a lie, mouth the lie, respect the lie or lose their job, "honor" and in some cases their freedom. Consider: In the ramp up to the first gulf war the American side was literally decimated before a single shot was fired by the other side! The percentage of woman who didn't or couldn't honor their oath was in DOUBLE DIGITS! 10% is "decimation"! I truly believe that there is a Chinese general somewhere who is praying to his god to get a shot at the US military. And anything he has seen in Iraq simply whets his appitite for war against a corrupted army. So far special forces (formerly tactical but now stratigic troops) and some Marine divisions have been enough, but the best thing an enemy of this country can do is force our military to "fight the way it trains". When that happens the few and the proud just won't be enough because they are the ONLY MEN, in the historical sense of the word, that we have.

[boxerblues]

Every day troops are expected to salute a lie, mouth the lie, respect the lie or lose their job, "honor" and in some cases their freedom


explain please

[TalBlack]

You're KIDDING right!!!??? Explain? PC? What don't you understand about it? It is political imperatives supplanting pratical experience and mission imperitives, you know, like in the Soviet Union. If you tell a superior or for that matter mention and are overheard saying that woman who have failed the intellectual and physical standards and who, if they were MEN could not even be in the military are UNFIT for service, a deadly threat to the troops, and a threat to morale you Will suffer porfessionally for it and you may even wind up on CHARGES! I have NEVER heard of a demale pilot who would have had her job at her level of performance if she were a man! A few have even been killed or almost caused the death of other officers but try MENTIONING that outloud! The Military today is an Orwellian NIGHTMARE wherein you can lose your career if you state the obvious or have angered a female subordinate (they have hotline numbers outside the chain of command to cry to if they don't like their immeadiate superior) or "stare" for more than 4.2 seconds at someone. Go to CMR.com if you need to know the depths to which a once proud military has sunk. You obviously don't know the half of it.

[boxerblues]

Look dont flame me I am only trying to understand and your right I dont know the half of it but Iwilling to learn. I have 2 boys in the Army, and I am trying to understand what they are going though.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bump

[Lorianne]

Oh please. Jane Chastain only looks at one side of things. How many military men break rules every year? How many break rules that jeapardize safety and unit cohesion, such as drug taking? What's the solution? Discipline. Follow the rules or you're out on your butt, if your lucky with no time in the brig.

I'd like to see the discipline logs from all military branches for the last 20 years. It's not like some young military people don't screw up.

Hell, we've got a military man in custody right now who threw a grenade into a tent of US officers killed and maiming them. I don't hear anyone calling for all men to be booted out based on his actions.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Too bad we bend the rules and lower the bar so that unqualified women can serve. But the Feminazis don't care about underming our military readiness, they see the military as just social another support net for single moms.

We army should never have had "Asan Akbar" in the combat zone either, but that's what happens when our military leaders grovel to special interest groups. They sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for the sake of "political correctness."

[wardaddy]

Bump to all your insight on this problem.

Both problems (the womyn issue and the Islamakazi one) are part of the same issue of ignoring reality to sate the PC Gods who govern perceptions in our culture.

Give us a war (hopefully not) of an endless series of Blackhawk Downs with our very survival at stake and all this crap will get tossed like a tick off a testicle.

[Lorianne]

Are you suggesting that all women are unqualified to serve?

[Tailgunner Joe]

In the combat zone, yes.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt