The New York Times last week reported on the Pentagon policy bill containing the proposal to repeal the controversial ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy in the US military. However, instead of focusing on this part of the bill, the piece focused on a lesser-known amendment that takes on another emotive issue – making abortion easier for military women in war zones.
Current US law bans abortions, in most cases, at military facilities – even if women pay for the procedure themselves. This means that serving women seeking an abortion are forced to go outside, to private hospitals or clinics, and this is pretty much impossible for most of the 100,000 American women serving overseas, especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Advocates of the amendment say that the result of the current law is that military women serving overseas do not have the same access to basic health care as non-serving American women. On the other hand, opponents of the amendment believe that, because abortions would be performed in government facilities, taxpayer’s money would be helping to subsidise the underlying costs of the procedure.
According to the New York Times, supporters are ‘cautiously optimistic about [the amendment’s] chances in the full Senate this summer.’ Similar amendments have failed numerous times since the current ban was put in place in the 1990s, but obviously women have been out in Afghanistan for nine years now (seven in Iraq), and this is the first vote of its type since President Obama was elected to power.
This is obviously a controversial one –but to me it all boils down to one simple question and one simple answer – shouldn’t a woman who puts her life on the line in service to her country have the same access to health care as any other American woman? Passing the amendment and allowing privately-funded abortions to be performed at military facilities would allow women in need to receive the same type of care millions of US women already have access to.
The US military don’t make public the number of serving women that become pregnant each year in Iraq & Afghanistan. Regardless of the number though, an unwanted pregnancy, to a woman serving in a war zone, is both a personal and professional crisis. As there is no access to safe abortions, regulations state that a woman has to be flown home within 2 weeks of finding out she is pregnant – according to the New York Times, this is seen as a stigma and ends any future career advancement within the armed forces. It’s not hard to see why – we know that the ‘mommy track’, as it is known, pretty much kills off any chance of career advancement in certain civilian careers – so just imagine what it does if you’re working in the military.
Women, no matter what their job and no matter what their circumstances, should have access to health care that is fair and consistent and should be allowed to make their own choices about their body and reproductive rights without fear of ruining their career or risking their health. The current policy within the US military does not allow this, and needs to be overturned.
I’m not a US citizen though, and therefore I don’t pay taxes to the US government – so my personal view might not tally with what some of you guys, who do, think. What do you guys think – should the amendment be passed?
Hm. Despite my opposition to abortion, especially taxpayer-funded, I think I have to come down on the side that it’s considered part of healthcare, and thus should be at least as accessible to the armed forces as to others. I have to think there is some way they could work this. People risking their lives for their country should certainly not be less advantaged than the average citizen back home.
Considering the fact that many of these abortions are from pregnancies as a result of rape, I’m concerned that the root of the problem isn’t being more thoroughly examined. Of course these women should have access to privately funded abortions, but there’s more to the story here.
I would consider them two totally separate issues. And even if there is something else that matters (like rape as an issue), it’s still very decent to fix this problem first. It’s probably simpler, and will still matter, even if much less, if there is no rape issue.
Where do you get the idea that many of the pregnancies are a result of rape?
Young women away from there boyfriends and husbands surrounded by young virile alpha males who give them more attention than any man back in the states would for months on end. The only rational explanation is that all the pregnancies are from rape. I mean that’s what they tell their SO and women don’t lie about things like that. A woman when found out in a compromising situation ALWAYS takes the high road and comes clean instead of fibbing. Only men lie.
I have absolutely no patience for false rape accusations, which I think should be treated as a serious crime in themselves, since it destroys a guy’s life.
But the fact that such a thing happens is no reason to believe that rape doesn’t.
Rape?
Huh?
Do you have any statistics on this?
How else would a woman get unexpectedly pregnant? DUH!
Yeah, it’s common knowledge:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17assault.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8511010.stm
http://humanrights.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/02/16/combating-sexual-violence-in-the-military/
http://pas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/37/1/101
http://womensenews.org/story/rape/030330/sexual-assault-pervasive-military-experts-say (this one is admittedly pretty old, but still useful and it pertains to this war)
Also, how are unwanted pregnancies and rape in the military separate issues? 30% of women in the armed forces are sexually assaulted. You think those sexual assaults never result in unwanted pregnancies? It’s not like the rapists bother to wear condoms, with 90% of the rapes never being reported, they don’t have to worry about DNA evidence.
But to sum things up, 30% of women in the military are raped, and 90% of those rapes are unreported. That kind of kicks the “false rape accusation” theory to the curb. By the way, claiming that it must all be false accusations is sexist in itself.
It seems like every time I post links to back up my points, the post is “under moderation” forever. I did post several, but they’re waiting to appear.
But to sum things up, 30% of women in the military are raped, and 90% of those rapes are unreported. That kind of kicks the “false rape accusation” theory to the curb. By the way, claiming that it must all be false accusations is sexist in itself.
Post one link only.
That may work.
I don’t have any problem with my taxes going to this. It’s completely unrealistic to give women serving in the military less availability to comprehensive health care when they are sacrificing themselves for their country. And if they are paying for it themselves, very little (if any) money is coming from the taxpayers.
Don’t allow women in the military.
Yeah, we should totally fire millions of women and deny millions more jobs in this economy, because of something that has nothing to do with them. Great solution.
nothing to do with them? did they trip and fell into a penis?
It is their responsibility to take care of themselves, and if they choose to have an abortion it is their choice. The government banning abortions in military facilities is stepping its boundary and dictating what these women can do with their bodies.
Well, no. The intention is to decide what will be done *in a government facility*. Normally, that’s great. Here, it needs further review, since the women do not have access to any other options.
yes, because if they were serving in America or any other country where abortion is a plausible option this would not be an issue. the fact that countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan do not provide these women, let alone their female population, with the option of terminating a pregnancy makes it the duty of the American government to provide this choice.
“nothing to do with them? did they trip and fell into a penis?”
No, but about a third of them were raped. See my above posts.
It’s ok, Shannon.
We have some commenters with multi personality disorder.
And 99.999% of their personalities have no reading comprehension to speak of.
busy day eh?
Well, technically, the recession has eliminated FAR more men’s jobs than women’s. And the military would still need to fill those positions. So really, removing women from the military in this economy would even out the job loss and better gender-spread the damage.
Of course, that would be silly for all sorts of other reasons. But the comment on the economy made me muse.
I’m ready to be slammed here.
If I was serving overseas I would be on the pill that stops your monthly period and serves as birth control. I think having a monthly period in combat would be one big pain in the ass. I would also want to be on some birth control that is 99% effective. People have enough to worry about in combat zones let alone pregnancy and periods.
I would outway the risks vs the postitives.
I know that doesn’t address the above post, but maybe it would aleviate some unwanted abortions.
The not having periods sounds convenient but I would have an IUD put in, wouldn’t have to worry for years and no chance something happening making you unable to get more pills.
no chance “of” something happening. grumble grumble no edit button grumble.
Another valid option. I firmly believe that I am responsible for my body. If I don’t want to chance getting pregnant under any circumstances I would be sure to protect myself from it. I also would consider abortion if necessary, but would do everything in my power before having to make that decision.
Too bad if you take certain medications (for infections, wounds, depression, allergies, etc) it lowers the effectiveness of your birth control and it doesn’t work. Or you are one of the .1% who is still impregnated. Or you were stuck in an area with no access to more medical supplies. Or your pills got too HOT in the DESERT, lowering their effectiveness. Or you were not planning on having sex (some people happen to be weird like that) or are a lesbian, but were raped. Or you became too stressed (psh, in a war zone, what for?) lowering effectiveness. Or you became sick and ‘eliminated’. Or you are given too much meat with excess hormones. Or you take too much vitamin C. Babies happen. While it sometimes is the result of carelessness, there are many times where it is not, and that is enough.
True enough, that’s why I also stated that I would consider an abortion if necessary.
Just something interesting here.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/13-year-old_girl_performs_diy_abortion_with_a_pencil
best best
best
leaving out the rape/consensual sex aspect of how a woman gets pregnant in a war zone (because that is a whole ‘nother can of worms) – if a woman is found to be pregnant while in a war zone she is made to leave. (i’m almost positive women are given a pregnancy test before they deploy to ensure they aren’t pregnant when they leave)
so for me the whole warzone-abortion access argument is moot.
however – my concern is when a woman is outside the US and finds herself pregnant. if she is an unfamiliar country, where she doesn’t speak the language, know the customs etc, and finds herself pregnant what then? it seems that the government would be remiss in their duty to the servicewomen if the refused to provide access to any and all services she would be able to find in the US while serving her country abroad.
Pingback: The 8 Ways Feminism has Ruined America, Chivalry and Women – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra
Soldiers aren’t supposed to have sex overseas. I have heard that some women purposefully try to get pregnant so they’re sent back home — not sure how much truth there is to this.
Pingback: New Report Finds Women Underpaid & Under-Represented in Creative Industries – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra