Serious Question
February 5th, 2010 by LL
UPDATE: The Pentagon has added the morning after pill to the list of medications available at all military bases. There is no need for legislation now, I believe.
——————————————
This is addressed more for the female military members like Army Sergeant, but it is open to everyone to debate (WITH CIVILITY) in comments.
When you read something like this, do you feel that the female military members' position is championed? Do you feel that you are represented by these Senators? Do you feel that it adds or detracts from the mission and your public perception as a member of the military? Do you feel that it adds or detracts from the feminist push to equalize the rights of the sexes in the military?
I'm very interested in your thoughts on this issue. It kind of ties in to the order that Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo gave that females who get pregnant are open to charges and so are the men who get them in that condition.
What do you think about these causes being pushed within the military from outside forces?
Posted in Military Perspective
Well, I don't know who "Army Sargent" is…I can't find any other reference to (I'm assuming) her on the site. In the first place, I do not believe that women belong in combat positions…okay, so that makes me sexist. BUT, if it's my wife in the foxhole next to me (I know…a bit of an exaggeration) guess whose a$$ I'm gonna worry about? Now, you get some 20 year old male (who are reputed to think about sex every 10 seconds as compared to us oldtimers who are reputed to think about sex about twice a day) with an attractive female (or unattractive for that matter) in the foxhole next to him and whose a$$ do you think he'll worry about? I (we) were raised that way! This diminishes the effectiveness of that fighting man. It's like women on submarines…so far, it hasn't happened…and there's a reason for it, basically close quarters. Sorry to all the women serving honorably in the military…you don't belong in combat. Call me what you want…my OPINION.
Doc
Yessir, and there will always be men who feel as you do and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.
But there is wanting & wishing versus reality. The reality is that women serve in the services with honor and distinction going back to the revolutionary war when women disguised as men served (google Deborah Sampson). They are here to stay.
The point of my post is to ask how people feel about using women in the military to further political ideals or reproductive rights instead of just looking at equal treatment.
It's not often I disagree with Doc Hal, but I have to here. Having been in combat with women, I didn't see that problem. When the crap hits the fan, Soldier worry about the enemy and EVERY Soldier, not just the women. In those situations, you're just happy to have a rifle next to you. Again, this is just my experience having served with woman on the run-up to Baghdad.
As for the article – and I'm not a woman – what a stupid idea! Figures it would be Al Franken sponsoring it. Surely it's a joke, then. Why do they want to reward irresponsible behavior?
Isn't it interesting that the first two comments are from men? I'll sit back and wait for women to respond.
I'm looking at this from a "Father's" perspective. I'm going to assume that my daughter has been assaulted and there should be something available so that she isn't impregnated by that cretin or has to carry his illicit seed to fruition. The fact that she is in the military should not be a deciding factor.
I'm a realist, as such, some women will probably use the "morning-after" pill instead of other contraceptives, but that is her decision.
As far as males….if you don't want any kids, keep it covered or zipped.
I do feel supported, and I don't feel it's something pushed from the outside. I will be calling my senators and urging them to support the bill, and here's why:
Emergency contraception is crucial, I mean absolutely crucial, in one circumstance that people don't want to think about but that is a real danger: rape while deployed.
It happens. It happens in larger numbers than you'd think. And most rapists rarely wear a condom. I hate to get graphic but I feel it needs to be said. The last thing a military victim of sexual assault needs is to worry about whether she could be pregnant with her rapist's child. Emergency contraception can be key not only for her peace of mind but also to avoid the trauma of either pregnancy or abortion under those circumstances.
Regular hospitals have that and it is a usual part of rape response, to offer it. However, it's important to have in military hospitals and clinics for two reasons.
1) Women overseas don't have access to 'regular hospitals' off base
2) Tricare doesn't cover going to a regular hospital when a military one is available, thus forcing a rape victim to spend her own money, which she may not have, to mitigate the consequences of her trauma.
This isn't about a reproductive battle. This is about helping servicewomen in a terrible situation, and I applaud it.
Excellent points, AS. I had not thought of that angle. But what about the fact that they want you to be able to just walk up to the dispensary and get it. Should women not report what has happened to them to prevent it from happening to other women? Should they not be examined and have that dispensed via a doctor?
I agree with Wendy.
As a woman saying this it will not be popular. If you are deploying to a combat area I think an IUD should be mandatory. You are right, Army Sergeant, about rape, God forbid it happens an IUD would a peace of mind for the woman on that front. And for most women who use an IUD there is usually a stop in their periods after 6 months. Another plus for those deployments. On the other hand I am totally against the emergency contreception pill. Also, other than rape, both sexes need to keep their pants on.
ArmyReserveWife, the biggest problem I have with your idea is that the IUD is not perfect.
1. It is not recommended for women who have not had children. One of the complications from this can be dangerous expulsion of the IUD. That is not something you want to happen while on convoy security detail or running PT, I suspect.
2. If you do not have a good gyn put it in, there can be problems. My family doc's wife had one pushed straight through her uterus. There goes a healthy female ready to deploy and now she's in surgery getting her works fixed.
3. It can lead to infertility, another reason why women who have not had kids are not recommended to use this.
4. The IUD with hormones may reduce or stop a period, but the copper one can increase it and make it heavier. Best friend ended up anemic from the copper one.
Knowing all of that, would you still want every female to be forced to do it? Why not do a temporary version of the current vasectomy option of clips on the vas deferens on men before they go? Same principle of small office procedure. Same chance of future infertility. Same issue of having it removed later.
In the end, forcing women to have a device implanted in her womb is a major violation of her personal rights and I disagree with your idea on that principle alone. The other stuff just makes the con argument stronger.
I don't like it at all. But, I don't like those things ("emergency contraception"/abortion), period, whether it's at a military medical facility or elsewhere. To use women in the military to pursue (IMO) misguided social engineering is shameful.
Miss Ladybug, what do you think of Selena's point? What if you are a female who has been raped by a fellow soldier? Should you be forced to carry a child because this was withheld as an option?
Thank God I've never faced that situation, but in my view, it's a child that has done nothing wrong to deserve death. I am not sure, even in a situation where I had been assaulted, that I could go through with it. Morally (for me, at any rate), it's a child, not a choice.
Miss Ladybug, the point of the Plan B or "morning after" pill is to prevent fertilization so a woman doesn't have to make that choice. Does that affect your opinion at all?
They can't say "Plan B" doesn't prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.
health.howstuffworks.com/morning-after.htm
For me, it's still the moral question of abortion.
o/t: does this new comment format not allow hyperlinks?
They can't say "Plan B" doesn't prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.
For me, it's still the moral question of abortion.
o/t: does this new comment format not allow hyperlinks?
I don't know about links.
But what makes you say "They can't say "Plan B" doesn't prevent a fertilized egg from implanting?"
This has about an 88% efficacy rate from what I understand and does not interfere with a pregnancy that is already there. So I have some confusion over your statement.
I tried to link my source, but it wouldn't post, even it it was just the URL as text… The source I found that talked about the "Plan B" pill said there is some speculation that taking the pill will prevent an already-fertilized egg (so, IMO, conception has occurred, and it's a baby) from implanting in the uterus. They say it won't, however, terminate a pregnancy where the fertilized egg is already implanted.
IMO, if a fertilized egg doesn't implant naturally, that's just the way it was meant to be, the body wasn't ready to be pregnant for whatever reason. If you intentionally do something to make that (prevention of implantation) happen, you are killing a child…
LL, maybe I can help clarify the action of 'plan B' & what Miss Ladybug has said.
First let me ask: When the sperm and egg unite (conception), you have a human embryo. Are you pregnant at that moment?
Ahhhhhhhh, ok, I get you guys. So any woman who uses the IUD form of birth control also basically is an abortion-factory because that's how that form works also? Both types, the one made of copper and the one made with hormones make the uterus hostile to implantation. Only forms of birth control that prevent sperm and egg from uniting EVER are acceptable? I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly trying to understand the thinking here.
I'm not getting involved it the debate because my views are so damn squishy yet so damn strong at the same time but. . .
Links are a strange thing, LB. I pulled one out of spam for you so it looks like a double post got in there, no biggie. I think you still have a registered account, no? If so, log in when you try to post links. You shouldn't have a problem there. I know LL has an admin account so she can post just about whatever and can pull stuff out of moderation or spam as well if I or CJ don't see them.
I've never researched IUDs, so I don't know how they are supposed to work. But, yes, I'd say the only acceptable (morally, IMO) is one that prevents conception. While I was raised Catholic, and the Church is against ALL forms of BC, I don't have a problem with ones that prevent conception.
Marcus~
I'm not seeing an option to "log in"…
The issue is a moral one.
While I have great personal sympathy for any woman who is raped this is a very troublesome 'solution'.
First, IUD's can indeed cause an early abortion. From the website emedicinehealth.com:
—————–
How an IUD Works
Hormonal and copper IUDs work in different ways. With a copper IUD, a small amount of copper is released into the uterus. This type of IUD does not affect ovulation or the menstrual cycle. Copper IUDs prevent sperm from being able to go into the egg by immobilizing the sperm on the way to the fallopian tubes. If an egg does become fertilized, implantation on the wall of the uterus is prevented because copper changes the lining of the uterus.
With hormonal IUDs, a small amount of progestin or a similar hormone is released into the uterus. These hormones thicken cervical mucus and make it difficult for sperm to enter the cervix. Hormonal IUDs also slow down the growth of the uterine lining, making it inhospitable for fertilized eggs.
——————–
So an IUD can cause an early abortion.
Required stocking in military pharmacies then raises the issue of the moral complicity of the pharmacist and staff. What provision is made so the pharmacist does not *have* to dispense the pill – since that makes him/her a key part of the abortion process?
Also, while we are discussing this in the context of rape, those incidents are blessed rare. The overwhelming majority of uses for this will not be rape, but a more casual sex.
LL: Should is a beautiful word.
Yes, in an ideal world all these things should happen. But a lot of times, the woman's head is not in the right place to tell anyone. Maybe she doesn't want to admit it because she's ashamed. Maybe she's worried. Maybe she doesn't want the unit to know, because she worries it will be held against her. Military medical privacy is very poor, notoriously so.
I think that having it available so that someone can request without having to schedule an appointment and take time off work may help someone get the prevention they need while they figure out their next step.
MissLadybug: Even in cases of rape?
I guess I hearken back to what CJ said in response to Doc Hal about the soldier beside you and worrying for them. I understand your point, and maybe I'm a stronger person than most, but I'd be the first person calling the MPs, CID, the UN, and every person I could get a hold of if someone violated me that way because I'd want justice AND I'd NEVER want a fellow woman to suffer at the hands of the same person. But I understand where you are coming from in that short time frame afterwards.
I agree with you, LL. I'd want the man who assaulted me to pay, so I'd tell whoever I had to tell about what happened to me.
Thanks CJ-I am one of those woman that have traveled all over by convoy,etc. as a driver/A driver, etc. through Iraq and I was under the 1st Infantry Division-"Big Red 1"Hooah!-"Diyala Region"!!I never saw ANY female that would NOT pick up a weapon and pull the trigger like any other soldier! We are all human yes-however,when in uniform,we are "A SOLDIER"! I have been across the treacherous roads with some AWESOME females and males as I saw AWESOME Air Force pilots/mechanics that were female and personally know AWESOME female Marines.This issue to me is one of"the good ole boys" problems about woman in combat.This is 2010-us woman HAVE proven ourselves right along side the males in combat zones and, I pray that more will realize if a man in a fox hole knows he will get his ass shot off and a woman is next to him he best NOT be thinking about ANYTHING else!Same goes for females.All soldiers sign an agreement to have a family care plan when they enlist as does men that are single parents in the military.Males NEED razors/Most woman NEED tampons-BOTH need contraceptives if they are going to rape/or defy orders by placing themselves in a situation that is unbecoming of a soldier Hope this helps.Peace my sisters/brothers in arms!
I am not a female soldier, but I am a female.
I agree with the "pregnancy" directive, as every military unit is a cohesive unit, and needs to stay a cohesive unit- especially while deployed. Pregnancy makes the female non-deployable, breaking down the cohesiveness of the unit. If the father is a soldier, he's just as liable as the pregnant female.
As for the 'morning after' pill…. I am torn. I see the need for this in cases of rape, but I am concerned over limiting its use just to rape. This could lead to false rape claims, which is not in anyone's best interest. If we're going to make it available… make it available to all, for any reason. Honestly, I think it's sad that legislation had to be proposed in order to get these meds stocked. Do we know how many (if any) medical facilities are NOT stocking it now?
AFS~
Maybe it's related to the "no federal funds to be used for abortion" thing…
This is not an easy issue to deal with.
Rape happens in war zones. A lot more than people think. Not being female, I'm not sure, but I believe almost every female in a war zone has it gnawing in the back of her mind. Especially in some place where we're now deployed, baby girls are killed just for being born female.
A morning after pill is a standard part of a rape kit these days in regular hospitals, and is always offered. Why should it not be in a military hospital? I would assume that military hospitals have rape kits, or am I wrong?
I personally like Sen. Franken. He's a breath of fresh air from the career politicians. He doesn't come from a political background. He made ALOT of people mad when he went after the arbitration issue. But it seems like he didn't care. He did what he thought was right. And that's what we need.
I think about what I suffered, just being a civilian contractor, and how much crap I took over my assault. I can't imagine what a female soldier would have to put up with. I know that I was just a civilian contractor in Kuwait & Iraq, but I do believe that I have some incite on this issue.
LL, I know you say that you would be right in to report it if you were violated, but until you have been through it, you don't know. I always told myself that if that happened to me, I would report it. But when it DID happen to me while I was in Kuwait working for KBR, it took me a month to report it, and that was after he came back a 2nd time.
Even though there were those that were hot in getting the facts and finding the person, there were many that wanted me to go home and keep my mouth shut about it. And the rumor mill was horrible. There were those that just came up and asked if it really happened, to those that whispered behind my back that I had asked for it. There were the "looks" of pity, fear, concern and hate that I had to put up with, once I reported it. To tell you the truth, if I knew then, what I know now and how I would be treated, I am not sure I would have reported it. It would have been easier to keep my mouth shut, buy a weapon on the black market, stay alert, and shoot his a** if he showed up again, which he did a month later.
I had my tubes tied after I had my 3rd son so worrying about getting pregnant from the assault was not a concern for me. I was more worried about what diseases he might have passed to me. If I had had to worry about getting pregnant from it as well, I do not think I would have made it through it as well as I did.
So, yes, I think that deployed women should have access to any and all contraception that they would if in the states. On the smaller bases and camps it would be harder to keep that kind of stuff, many of them don't have a PX, hospital, or CASH unit. They only have a medic. So I don't know how those women would have access without everyone knowing. And as much as we would like to think that rape victims would not suffer any recourse or discrimination by the people around her, she will. I have seen that personally.
The stigma associated with being raped (from what I recall reading over the years) has improved dramatically. I am sure there are environments where talking about/reporting it will – as you experienced – be how it used to be for everyone. I would think it would never get better if the problem is ignored completely, which is what would happen if women did not report incidents of rape. It is a personal decision to report. But if a victim doesn't, the perpetrator if free to do it again. And again. I don't think someone who rapes only does it once.
In the real world I am sure that it has, but we are talking about women when deployed. Even though there are more and more women joining the military, being civilian contractors and truck drivers those jobs are still considered to be in a "man's world". I agree with you on the belief that if they have raped once, they will do it again, especially if they get away with it the first time. But I have to say, the crap you have to put up with, like I did, if in a "man's world" is hard to deal with. If it were not for my crew, the military escorts that escorted my convoys on a regular basis, I might have come home. I try to focus on those guys and not all the bad reactions.
Okay, got logged in. Now, let's see if it let's me post a hyperlink.
I have never been in the military, but most definitely am a woman who has suffered the abuse of a man. It is a dicy thing physically and mentally. Now if the morning after pill is supposed to help those who are raped, yes I think it should be available as quietly as possible, for the wrath of the male masses can be almost as detrimental as the attack itself.
As far as consensual sex, which I am sure happens more than is reported, I have to ask (because I truly have no idea) is contraceptives given to both men and women when downrange? Is it available? I imagine that condoms would be the easiest available type of contraceptive, and if easily available I think there should be few pregnancies as a result. (I say few since abstinence is the only 100% sure pregnancy preventer.) As far as women getting pregnant while deployed, I can see how that could cause several problems and why there could be repercussions. Which takes me back to abstinence or condoms. In the end since a DNA test is the only way to find the father, and the mother is easy to see, I guess in the end it comes down to taking full responsibility for your actions and dealing with the consequences of your choices.
I don't see any satisfactory solutions at all. Abortion is against my personal ethics, which is what both the IUD and morning after pill (which is not without potentially serious side effects also) amount to.
The suggestion of requiring female soldiers to wear an IUD is horrifying. I don't know of any greater violation to a woman's rights that forcing something into her body that she doesn't want. The same with the morning after pill, were it ever forced on a woman soldier (or any woman), or if she were coerced into taking it. I see a potentially great danger of that, which is only a step away from forced abortions beyond the zygote or embryonic stage, or abortions without consent…which have probably happened at various times and places anyway that were never reported.
Army Sergeant brought out some valid points regarding rape in the military. However, I didn't understand the part about why she feels it's necessary to have the morning after pill widely available if the reason for having it is to take after rape. In that case, why not just have it available for rape vicitms? Is the process for reporting rapes working, or no?
Proudly served eight years in the Army, but grateful to the Lord that he kept my daughters out.
The Military Health System hosted a debate on its site about the availability of Emergency Contraception in the Military. Check out the discussion at health.mil/De...e.aspx?ID=16.
LB, Cat5 must have removed the Meta Data section of the sidebar when they took over. Meh. No worries, I can take care of you. Try logging in and see what happens.
Thanks, Marcus. Missed you tonight with the show!
Missed y'all, too!