Pregnancy - a court martial offense?

[marct]

I appreciate the discussion about one aspect of a general order I have applied here in the combat zone of Iraq. The true intent of my directive cannot be easily understood from one or two brief articles, so I would like to clarify my rationale for the directive.

Thank you, sir - 'tis appreciated.

To this end, I made an existing policy stricter. I wanted to encourage my Soldiers to think before they acted, and understand their behavior and actions have consequences -- all of their behavior. I consider the male Soldier as responsible for taking a Soldier out of the fight just as responsible as the female Soldier who must redeploy.

In general, an excellent policy.

To ensure a consistent and measured approach in applying this policy, I am the only individual who passes judgment on these cases. I decide every case based on the unique facts of each Soldier's situation. Of the very few cases handled thus far, it has been a male Soldier who received the most severe punishment; he committed adultery as well. Though there have not been any cases of sexual assault, any pregnancy that is the product of a sexual assault would most certainly not be considered here; our total focus would be on the health and well-being of the victim and justice for the perpetrator.

That is something of a relief. There is a danger that any policy directive will be implemented "even handedly", i.e. without any regard for the context. Just out of interest and as an hypothetical, if a female soldier does get pregnant by her husband (assuming both are serving at the same time) and is in a non-combat role and wishes to stay as long as the pregnancy wouldn't interfere with her work, would you be amenable to that?

I do not expect those who have never served in the military to completely understand what I have tried to explain above. Recently I was asked, "Don’t you think you are treading on an intensely personal topic?" As intensely personal as this topic might be, leaving those who depend on you shorthanded in a combat zone gets to be personal for those left, too. This addition to a standing general order is just a small part of our overall effort to foster thoughtful and responsible behavior among our Soldiers.

Well, I would agree that it may be hard for people who have never served in a military to understand the specifics of your explanation, the general motive behind it shouldn't be that hard at all - don't leave your friends in the lurch. Never having served in the military, I don't have any problems with understanding that one .

As to it being an "intensely personal topic", of course it is, but so what? Obviously, the person who asked you that question either believes that wars can be fought without bloodshed and shouldn't interfere with anyones human rights (probably believes in the Easter Bunny as well....). All personal choices influence your friends, relatives, co-workers, etc.; as the saying goes, the personal is political.

[Ken White]

...Wilf, while your proposition is great in theory, I just can't see it working in the U.S.

That's what should happen but it is unlikely here...

I think the General did the Army a service -- and I'm a big supporter and fan of female troopies.

Who are not pregnant.

IMO, the service should offer pregnancy sabbaticals; two years off active (or reserve) duty upon confirmation of pregnancy but you still owe Sam the rest of the time on your contract after that. Period, no exceptions other than for miscarriage or stillbirths on a by case basis.

Yeah, I know -- that won't fly either...

[marct]

IMO, the service should offer pregnancy sabbaticals; two years off active (or reserve) duty upon confirmation of pregnancy but you still owe Sam the rest of the time on your contract after that. Period, no exceptions other than for miscarriage or stillbirths on a by case basis.

Yeah, I know -- that won't fly either...

Probably not - it makes too much sense . Damn, maybe now DoD will start looking into "tubing" technologies !

[Levi]

Hang on.

The GUY gets in trouble, too? Having served with women, let me say sex is going to happen. But I knew women who fell head over heels in "love" and intentionally got pregnant, in hopes of being stationed with, or at least permanently tied to the father. I was in the gulf, on a carrier, there were no women forward deployed aboard ship then, thank God. (Although I certainly thought differently at age 19 after months at sea.) The military is an impermanent place, and you are constantly moving, meeting people and then they are gone. It has to be tempting to form a tie that binds, if you believe a pregnancy might do it. I get the idea, if the directive cuts down on personnel loss, great. Any little bit has to help. But the guy? How do you prove he is the father? Her word? He might just be the least bad choice among many. And as far as critical personnel, everyone is irreplaceable, until they are replaced.
I am surprised how much traffic this subject generates. Everyone, male and female, serving in any branch knows it is a bad idea, and probably against regs, to start a pregnancy and that doing so will get you a discharge. Probably an admin sep. I watched a guy jump off the ship, into the water no less, because of family problems back home. If getting pregnant gets you a discharge, and a discharge gets you out of whatever hell you are in at that moment, then court martial or admin sep or whatever, its gonna happen. Lets put women in war zones, and in combat. Huh, seemed like a good idea at the time. This is what a General is forced to deal with? Loss of combat readiness... through unexpected pregnancy?? I don't envy him.

[marct]

Hang on.

The GUY gets in trouble, too?

Yup - "it takes two to tango", so damn straight the guy should get in trouble as well.

How do you prove he is the father? Her word? He might just be the least bad choice among many.

I don't know how MG Cucolo is determining that, however it is a pretty darn simple proceedure using an amniocentisis DNA test.

Will sex happen? Sure - hey it happened in the British navy in the 17th & 18th centuries and there weren't any women serving there! Of course it will happen, this directive is just designed to make people think about the potential effects of it.

I am surprised how much traffic this subject generates. Everyone, male and female, serving in any branch knows it is a bad idea, and probably against regs, to start a pregnancy and that doing so will get you a discharge. Probably an admin sep.

The scary thing is that that really doesn't matter "in the heat" (as it were ). All too many people in North America just don't equate sex with pregnancy (take a look at the surveys of early teens if you don't believe me). Certainly from what the General just posted, this is about consequences of actions and not "morality" per se.

This is what a General is forced to deal with? Loss of combat readiness... through unexpected pregnancy?? I don't envy him.

Neither do I ! It will, unfortunately, get worse.....

[Kiwigrunt]

Will sex happen? Sure - hey it happened in the British navy in the 17th & 18th centuries and there weren't any women serving there!

The more things change, the more they stay the same....

[Adam L]

That might work if you had one that worked at 99.999% efficiency. Since we don't, it is a bust. A simpler solution would be to use the previous policy - out of the zone in 14 days - and extend their enlistment time for the time off.

Marc

I can live with 90+ percent efficacy. My understanding is that it is 99.7% effective when it is used properly and there are no underlying medical problems or complications. I agree that the previous policy is probably the best idea, but this would do a pretty good job of preventing "essential" personnel from getting knocked up.

Adam L

[Schmedlap]

If a guy has a threesome with two girls and only one of them gets pregnant, then does the non-pregnant female get in trouble for participating in the activity that resulted in a Soldier being lost from the fight? I know it sounds like a smartass question, but it's not.

[Adam L]

If a guy has a threesome with two girls and only one of them gets pregnant, then does the non-pregnant female get in trouble for participating in the activity that resulted in a Soldier being lost from the fight? I know it sounds like a smartass question, but it's not.

Most men I know would accept a court martial in exchange for a threesome (I assume we are talking a true threesome, and not a one and then the other deal.) It's an interesting question. What would the charge be for the non-pregnant female? Would it a be a accessory charge? Would the impregnated female have undertaken the act without the presence of the non-pregnant female. Who applied the condom if one was used? Was the pregnancy as a result of improper condom application? Did someone suggest that it was "better bareback?" All of these questions would be relevant. Also, if the threesome consisted of two guys and one gal would both men be charged? If there was a sex party or perhaps a full blown orgy, would everyone be charged?

Note: I wish to state that this post is protected intellectual property that if used as the plot for a porno movie will result in legal action if a percentage and/or free copies are not awarded to members of the council. LOL!

I think it is possible that all parties involved could be found culpable of some offense.

Adam L

[Dr. C]

I thought this issue of giving jail time to a pregnant female Soldier or a male Soldier who can be found responsible for impregnating a female Soldier serving in Task Force Marne Area of Operations raised some other moral, ethical, and legal questions. If the reason is that the female Soldiers are purposely getting pregnant to be sent home and they are having an adverse effect on the unit's mission, what about the following cases. Do these equally deserve court martial and jail time?

1. Suicide attempts
2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"
3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water
4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising
5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions

Just on another note, and I really hope this isn't taken the wrong way, if you recall, one of the victim's of the Ft. Hood shooter was a female Soldier, 21-year-old Army Private Francheska Velez, who was going home early because she was three months pregnant. The news stories I read implied that she had just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I wasn't sure if that meant she was sent home early from Iraq when she learned she was pregnant, or if she completed her tour and was then going to be released for maternity leave.

[Adam L]

1. Suicide attempts

Not unless they are staged. Although, I would not call them actual "attempts" if they were staged.

2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"

Yes, if it was done for the purpose of being unfit for duty.

3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water

Yes. I remember a fellow telling me how he was disciplined for just failing to drink enough water.

4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising

Yes, if willful and/or with the intent of being unfit for duty.

5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions

It depends. As I understand it the military is really pushing motorcycle safety. As I understand it, you can't ride a motorcycle on a military base without a safety course (this is what the instructor at my safety course said.) Perhaps it won't be long before people will be punished for not wearing proper safety equipment when riding. Throughout history, military commanders have found it necessary to restrict and/or regulate many of thier men's activities in order to keep them in fighting condition.

Adam L

[Pete]

From Stars and Stripes, Mideast edition, Wednesday, December 23, 2009:

The general who made pregnancy while on duty in Iraq a prosecutable crime defended his decision Tuesday, saying he never considered jailing or court-martialing pregnant women, but simply wanted his troops to think about the consequences of their actions.

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, who commands Multi-National Division-North, said he wanted to send the message that “anyone who leaves the fight early creates a burden on their teammates” and that such decisions “should have professional consequences.”

But he also said punishment for violating the ban, which falls under the command’s General Order No. 1, will involve only administrative discipline.

“I believe I can handle violations of this aspect with lesser degrees of punishment,” he said. “I have never considered court-martial for this. I do not ever see myself putting a soldier in jail for this.”

Click below for the entire article:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=66832

[William F. Owen]

1. Suicide attempts
2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"
3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water
4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising
5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions

Yes. Instant dismissal and/or jail time. Some form of disciplinary action for sure. Take your pick. Context applies.

Getting someone pregnant or becoming pregnant is not "It just happened" event. OK, some Jewish girl from Nazareth got pregnant all by herself.... but really?

[Adam L]

Getting someone pregnant or becoming pregnant is not "It just happened" event. OK, some Jewish girl from Nazareth got pregnant all by herself.... but really?

I wonder how long it will be before someone actually claims that G-d is the baby daddy. That never worked where I grew up. (80% Italian Catholic town)

Adam L

[Stan]

1. Suicide attempts
2. Sunburns due to purposely not wearing sunscreen or "protection"
3. Dehydration due to purposely not drinking enough water
4. Change in weight gain due to improper nutrition or exercising
5. Any change in health status that takes a Soldier away from the mission due to the Soldier not taking proper precautions

Hey Dr. C !
I've seen several instances of all of the above at White Sands and in Sub-Sahara, although and sadly, most suicide attempts all worked. Basically, responsibility for all of the above falls squarely on the soldier's NCO and/or PL. To be fair however, these instances are fairly easy to catch and mostly reversible.

Somewhat related - I know of at least one instance where a soldier had an abortion (without her husband's knowledge) so as to remain eligible for her deployment.

Regards, Stan

[Schmedlap]

I wonder how long it will be before someone actually claims that G-d is the baby daddy. That never worked where I grew up.

I doubt that it would work in this case, either. The most recent lawsuit against the almighty that I am aware of was dismissed with prejudice. While service of process would seem a no-brainer, given omniscience, the judge concluded that the court could not conclude that papers had been filed in the absence of a legal address. Even if that had succeeded, it is doubtful that the court would have been willing to grant the injunction sought, since any attempt to enforce the court order would likely have invited a hail of fire and brimstone from the defendant.

[Adam L]

I doubt that it would work in this case, either. The most recent lawsuit against the almighty that I am aware of was dismissed with prejudice. While service of process would seem a no-brainer, given omniscience, the judge concluded that the court could not conclude that papers had been filed in the absence of a legal address. Even if that had succeeded, it is doubtful that the court would have been willing to grant the injunction sought, since any attempt to enforce the court order would likely have invited a hail of fire and brimstone from the defendant.

Irrelevant! The court will not be held hostage by any force human or dieity. Terrorism will not be tolerated!

Adam L

[Uboat509]

Just a few things to consider from my point of view,

1. If a female is getting pregnant in order to get sent home from a deployment, how good a soldier was she likely to be to begin with? Is the goal to retain the best soldiers for the job or just warm bodies? If she is that type just get rid of her.

2. If a female gets pregnant unintentionally, i.e. a failure of contraception, is it fair or even a good idea to jail her?

3. Some people want to fry the male with the female and if he was knowingly involved in a deliberate attempt by this female to get pregnant in order to get out of service, then I would agree. Unfortunately I have seen a number of situations where females lied to a male about being on the pill, having an IUD etc. in order to trick him into impregnating her. Is that stupid on his part? Yes. But is it criminal?

4. We need to dispense with the idea that we can stop soldiers from having sex in a combat zone by threatening them with punishment. You are not going to stop it with anything short of certain very invasive surgical procedures, and I am reasonably certain that those will not play well in the press nor will they be good for recruiting.

SFC W

[J Wolfsberger]

Irrelevant! The court will not be held hostage by any force human or dieity. Terrorism will not be tolerated!

Adam L

It wouldn't be terrorism. In this situation the defendant is also a Higher Court asserting jurisdiction.

[Adam L]

It wouldn't be terrorism. In this situation the defendant is also a Higher Court asserting jurisdiction.

Perhaps, but he would be an interested party in this case. Since this would create a conflict of interest he would be obligated to recuse himself.

Adam L