Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






American Catch


Truthdig Bazaar
The First Tycoon

The First Tycoon

By T.J. Stiles
$23.88

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Get Pregnant, Get Court-Martialed

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 20, 2009
stewart.army.mil

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, leader of the U.S. Army in northern Iraq, instituted the new pregnancy policy, which applies even to married couples who are at war together.

Remember when protecting women’s rights was given as a justification for invading countries? Well, the U.S. general in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the reasons why a soldier could be court-martialed—a list that includes selling weapons and taking drugs.  —JCL

The BBC:

A US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.

It is current army policy to send pregnant soldiers home, but Maj Gen Anthony Cucolo told the BBC he was losing people with critical skills.

That was why the added deterrent of a possible court martial was needed, he said.

The new policy applies both to female and male soldiers, even if married.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

EJH's avatar

By EJH, December 28, 2009 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

“Make War, Not Love”.  http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, December 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

Dorn:

You’re right about all but one thing. The man won’t be sent home. He get’s
to stay there. He’ll just have his career ruined because he dared have a
relationship that involved sex while he was deployed.

The military has quite a strange fixation with sex. It has a very rich history
of not only persecuting people who don’t fit its extremely narrow definition
of the sexually acceptible, but also of great sexual hypocrisy. I’m convinced
this is due to a hidden shame that each generation of military bestows on
the next. Recruits are brought into a culture where sex is happening
everywhere: where infidelity among the married is often the rule rather
than the exception. Its a world where young men go out cruising the strip
bars and cat houises to prove their manhoods and where young male and
female soldiers find themselves in a perpetual drunken and violent
summer camp scenario. Bottom line is that a lot of freaky shit goes down
in the military and I believe the organization perpetuates it first by
indoctrinating them into the culture and then shaming them for it. As they
grow more and more socialized into it through their careers, the punished
will turn into the punisher. In this respect the military is more like a very
strict and very closeted priest who is desperate to potray an image of
wholesome goodness. Upholding that image becomes all important, to the
point that he is willing to inflict damage upon another in order to do so. Its
not just about keeping up the image and the lie to the public. Its about
keeping the lie up for themselves. They have to or their entire world view
and self image collapses.

Report this

By DornDiego, December 23, 2009 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As Ardee said, this is a continuation of the xian takeover
of the military, not the wise soldiering of Gen. Cucolo.
After all, if the general is worried about preserving the
numbers under his command surely he realizes that his
new policy on pregnancy would court martial not one,
but two, soldiers, and he’s doubling the damage done
to his command by prosecuting them. 
In the end, though, this is a crime against women, not
pregnancy.  No one can seriously believe that every
male will admit his role in the pregnancy.  Will the Army
take the pregnant’s word against the impregnator’s? 
Will the army do DNA testing to aid in the successful
prosecution of the impregnator?  Or will the General’s
xian warriors simply be content to damn the woman and
praise the impregnator?

Report this

By ardee, December 22, 2009 at 3:38 am Link to this comment

Dont ask, dont swell.

Report this

By Task Force Marne, December 22, 2009 at 3:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.
  In this 22,000 Soldier Task Force, I need every Soldier I’ve got, especially since we are facing a drawdown of forces during our mission. Anyone who leaves this fight earlier than the expected 12-month deployment creates a burden on their teammates. Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status—or contributes to doing that to another—is not in keeping with a key element of our ethos, “I will always place the mission first,” or three of our seven core values: loyalty, duty and selfless service. And I believe there should be professional consequences for making that personal choice. 
    My female Soldiers are absolutely invaluable, many of them holding high-impact jobs that are often few in numbers, and we need them all for the duration of this deployment. With their male counterparts, they fly helicopters, run my satellite communications, repair just about everything, re-fuel and re-arm aircraft in remote locations, are brilliant and creative intelligence analysts, critical members of medical teams, in all areas of logistics and personnel support across this Georgia-sized piece of Iraq north of Baghdad, and much more. Since I am responsible and accountable for the fighting ability of this outfit, I am going to do everything I can to keep my combat power—and in the Army, combat power is the individual Soldier.
  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.
  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.
  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. 

Proudly serving you,
Tony Cucolo
Major General, US Army
Commander, Task Force Marne
Tikrit, Iraq

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, December 21, 2009 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

While I certainly empathize with the General’s difficult position in prosecuting a war without an appropriately resourced military to handle the task, the fact remains that only in the military does the following logic apply:

-Someone is valuable to me
-That person is so valuable I cannot afford to lose them
-Because I cannot lose them, I will criminally prosecute them if I do.

That is not the expression of value, but that of an abusive relationship. The military is the only organization that is still allowed to criminalize what would otherwize be legal sexual behavior, such as adultery or pregnancy. It is an archaic form of puratanism veiled by an excuse of a ‘higher standard.’ Such a belief fails in a most basic understanding of human sexuality and behavior especially when under high levels of stress and isolation.

I do fully believe that the policy would not be applied to victims of rape. However, I wonder if the policy would applied evenly? Would a Soldier, male or female, who is hailed as a hero also be prosecuted for adultery? Would a Soldier who fails to wash his hands and becomes too ill to stay in country be similarly prosecuted? Perhaps a smoker who contracts lung cancer or someone in an auto accident who failed to buckle up? If not, I’m curious why this particular issue has been singled out for special policy, enforcement, and prosecution.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, December 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

Truthdiggger3


Please do not assume a point of such vast knowledge that you presume to know everything that has or has not happened in either of these theaters of war. Yes, we raised concerns about gate security. Yes we predicted something bad would happen. Yes, these were the same concerns raised by the unit we replaced. Yes, on the day Dick Cheney came to visit several weeks later, a suicide bomber took out 23 locals, coalition and American soldiers at that gate. And yes, the same chain of command that we repeatedly delivered those concerns to spent far more time policing and bitching about sex than fixing security. After such a high profile blood-bath though, all of a sudden they were able to find the money and wherewithall to fix the security at that gate. True story, like it or not. I know this because I was in the damn meeting when we warned them.

We are most certainly talking about sex being outlawed, either overtly as in general order #1, or subvertly through other regulations. That is precisely why I received a vist from the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for one of my soldiers who had been accused of such a thing. They may loosen some of the regulations time and again but they always leave a way to prosecute for it. For instance, they may have changed general order number one to stop prosecuting for sex, but then made it illegal to enter the living quarters of someone of the opposite gender, even for a moment. Such regulations all come from the same place: someone is uncomfortable with sex.

Contraception or not, this is still prosecuting a woman for her biology. I didn’t see any men getting in trouble for beating off in the showers (thank god for flip flops!). A woman gets pregnant though and she is automatically accused of manipulating the system to be sent home. I’ve even seen women accused of that because they had sex with their husbands back home on R&R leave and came back only to find out later on that they were pregnant. Didn’t stop the good ole boy network from going into a full on smear campaign against her, though. All they knew was that she was a woman, she was pregnant and she was being sent home. Everything she’d done up to that point mattered not. As fas as they were concerned, she might as well have been a prositute. Oh, and her evalutaion was, shall we say “less than stellar…”

The army doesn’t have a problem declaring that war is part of “human nature” when it’s confronted with its own actions during that war. The army doesn’t have a problem shrugging its shoulders when it accidentally bombs a wedding party by saying “we do the best we can, but these things happen in war.”  A woman gets pregnant, though, and all understanding of human nature goes out the window. Why is it acceptible to prosecute a woman for getting pregnant while deployed but its not acceptible to prosecute when 100 innocent Iraqis or Afghans get killed because of bad decisions, neglect or sheer incompetence? As a follow up, I would ask which one has done more to turn populations against us and ultimately killed Americans? Where is the accountability for that?

Like I said. At least the troops aren’t fucking.

All I can say is thank God I’m out of it. I’m never going back. While there are some very good people in the military, as an organization it doesn’t deserve the loyalty or sacrifice.

Report this

By Charles, December 21, 2009 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think this is ridiculous.  Yes, soldiers should be careful and use contraceptives, however, mistakes happen to everyone and surprise pregnancies are common, my wife and I have 5 kids, 2 of them were conceived while she was taking the pill, it happens.  We shouldn’t punish our soldiers because they want to start a family or accidentally start one.

Report this

By truedigger3, December 21, 2009 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

No_Man_Land wrote:

“Yes they are having sex. They are soldiers not monks.”
____________________________________________________

Nobody said they cann’t have sex, they can, but all they have to do is to use contraceptives or condoms. Is that hard to do, or the “heat of passion” is so overwhelming!!?
However, with that said, any sex between higher and lower rank should be met with utmost disapproval and harsh punishment, especially for the higher rank because it is bad for discipline and morale and also the lower rank participant could be coerced and intimidated to consent.

Are you trying to tell us that the security of the bases are sacrificed and neglected bcause the manpower needed is busy prowling the bases looking for people who are having sex.??!! YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING!. That is pure bullshit and nonsense.!

Report this

By December 5, 1933, December 21, 2009 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

So THAT’S why, historically, the Empire the US is modelling itself after brought little boys into battle with them! I get it now!

Report this

By NYCartist, December 21, 2009 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

Gosh, in the 1950s my mother said, “don’t get pregnant” she didn’t say I’d be courtmarshalled.  Where’s Obama, Commander-in-Chief?

Report this

By NYCartist, December 21, 2009 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

It’s not a full photo:I can’t tell if the general is pregnant.  Probably not.

Report this

By USD-N PAO, December 21, 2009 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.
  In this 22,000 Soldier Task Force, I need every Soldier I’ve got, especially since we are facing a drawdown of forces during our mission. Anyone who leaves this fight earlier than the expected 12-month deployment creates a burden on their teammates. Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status—or contributes to doing that to another—is not in keeping with a key element of our ethos, “I will always place the mission first,” or three of our seven core values: loyalty, duty and selfless service. And I believe there should be negative consequences for making that personal choice. 
    My female Soldiers are absolutely invaluable, many of them holding high-impact jobs that are often few in numbers, and we need them all for the duration of this deployment. With their male counterparts, they fly helicopters, run my satellite communications, repair just about everything, re-fuel and re-arm aircraft in remote locations, are brilliant and creative intelligence analysts, critical members of medical teams, in all areas of logistics and personnel support across this Georgia-sized piece of Iraq north of Baghdad, and much more. Since I am responsible and accountable for the fighting ability of this outfit, I am going to do everything I can to keep my combat power—and in the Army, combat power is the individual Soldier.
  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.
  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.
  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 motivate thoughtful and responsible behavior among our Soldiers. 

Proudly serving you,
Tony Cucolo
Major General, US Army
Commander, Task Force Marne
Tikrit, Iraq

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, December 21, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

Keith:
“Why shouldnt the female and male
receive a court-martial?  They are having sex in the battlefield not at home….. If
any person here thinks that this wrong then I finally understand what they mean
by the ‘extreme left.’”

I’ll do my best to address your concerns:

1) Yes they are having sex. They are soldiers not monks. It’s happening up and down the chain, I assure you, but most courts martial will only be levied against lower enlisted.

It’s interesting that when the military was all or mostly male, sex was not an issue. Hell, infidelity, prositution, drinking and carousing were all normal parts of military culture. As far as policy goes, prior to the military’s total ban on sex in these wars, it had a long standing policy meant more to preserve the chain of command rather than policing all sexual behavior. Sex between peers was fine, but if a superior had sex with a subordinate that was considered detrimental to the integrity of command and often crossed into the realm of sexual harrassment.

This policy believes that sex itself is a factor of winning or losing the war. It chosses to hang a scarlet letter on anyone having sex—especially women (the last I checked it would take around nine months to prove who the father was assuming the mother granted the military permission to do a DNA test on the child in the first place.) This goes far beyond preserving the chain of authority and becomes something closer to an inquisition.

One of my biggest frustrations is that this issue tends to take a very disproportionate priority in theater. I can’t tell you how many times we raised security concerns with something like the entrance procedures to a FOB that went patently ignored—ignored by the very same people who expended tremendous amounts of energy sneaking around at night trying to bust soldiers for having sex. It’s not until something happens at that gate and people die do they begin to give a damn about the security concerns raised. So, 20 some locals/soldiers get blown apart from a suicide bomber but at least we get to say that the troops aren’t fucking. I wonder how the parents of dead soldiers would feel if they knew that policing sex took a higher priority than common sense safety and security. Where is the court martial for that? It doesn’t exist because the army accepts that “bad things happen in war.” It just doesn’t accept that sex does too.

2) These soldiers have to come home and try to fit back into life at home. They have a hard enough time looking mom in eyes after a deployment without the rest of us, not to mention the legal system, hanging an albatross of guilt around their necks for doing what is encoded in the DNA of every person on this planet. At a time when military suicides are going through the roof, extreme sexual repression for 15 months or longer will only lead to higher rates of mental illness and/or violence. It often leads to increased aggression which can a does translate into behavioral disorders that can and often do translate into violence. That’s not me saying that. That’s basic psychology.

3) There is no correlation between having sex and a decreased job performance. If anything, it probably improves it. Sure, it might create some drama that commanders will have to work through. I can attest to the fact that commanders simply don’t want to deal with the drama in the ranks. They tend to harken back to a simpler, all male military where they didn’t have to worry about this. What they fail to acknowledge is that there is drama among troops whether they are having sex or not. I would go so far as to say that sex is not even the primary driver of intra-unit strife. Rather, things like petty unit politics, ego, bad leadership, & personal ambition drive many more problems than sex ever did.

Finally, its been my sad experience that commanders like this guy tend to make these kinds of policies merely so they can present an image of competent command.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, December 21, 2009 at 5:27 am Link to this comment

Having served over there myself. I feel confident to comment on this. First,
the sex police are vibrant bunch throught the chain of command.
Those who are discussing a christian fundamentalist movement in the
military are on target. Commanders openly lead their troops in prayer and
feel that prefacing their actions with “if you’re offended by this then too
bad” makes what they’re doing ok. Yes, that approcah often translates into
policy as in this case. Women who get pregnant, whether married or not,
are often accused of doing so on purpose to get out of theater. That leads
me to my second point. Part of what’s driving this is that if a woman
becomes pregnant she must be sent home. The military is stretched so
thin that there simply aren’t enough soldiers to replace them all. So part of
the systemic problem here is the original sin of these wars: we are a miltary
ar war and not a nation at war.  Agree or disagree with war, the fact is that
we endeavored to fight two protracted wars without so much as raising
taxes, much less expanding the size of the military. That is the cost of
keeping the american people insulated from all costs of these wars: the
difference is contracted out and those who do serve are punished for mere
biology, male and female. Couple the numbers with the evangelist culture
and you have the makings for this type of religious tyranny. Sex happens ans as soon as the military, and more broadly the american people, move beyond that the better off we’ll all be.

Truthdig is right publish this. However it should explore every factor that
contributes to such junk policy.

Report this

By ardee, December 21, 2009 at 3:57 am Link to this comment

Babs

“It is so easy to cast judgment on soldier’s over there when you are sitting at your computer”

Firstly I would thank you for your service. Then I would ask you where you see criticisms of individual troops here at TD?

Report this

By Tratios, December 21, 2009 at 3:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Based on the comments did anyone read the article?

This is just an upgrade from a previous policy, before it was an Article 15 now its a Court-Martial. It has nothing to do with politics or sexism, its based on mission requirements.

Most of the comments appear to be from people who did not read/research and differents in understanding between civilians and the military. You will find that Soldiers have no issues with the policy change.  That is perhaps the real lesson from this is that the military and civilian worlds need to understand each other better. Things that happen daily in the civilian world, make no sense to the military and military life makes no sense to civilians.

Report this

By Babs, December 20, 2009 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I did two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan contributing to over three years in the sand pit. One of those times I was fortunate enough to see my husband at some occasions. Though when we did meet it was strictly PG I would never think of not allowing a married couple to be intimate. There are many married soldiers over there.  And second for all those that say that this law should be allowed obviously hasn’t spent a year in Iraq. It is so easy to cast judgment on soldier’s over there when you are sitting at your computer. A year can feel like a eternity over there, not to mention the hazardous environment and inability to get away from the stress.

Report this

By omygodnotagain, December 20, 2009 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

ardee
the reason there are so many evangelicals can be found in the Old Testament. In that part of the Bible there is a God who acts like a superhero for the tribes of Israel. Thousands of hittites, moabites, midianites, philistines and non Israelites are just struck down for no good reason other than they are enemies of the Israelites. Further morally questionable acts like Jacob stealing his brothers birthright are given God’s stamp of approval. The Evangelicals see themselves as the new Israelites. One has only to go to say a Catholic Church on any Sunday, references to the Old Testament are rare, go to an Evangelical service and its all about some Old Testament character ranting on about God destroying their enemies for some imagined crime against them. It is hateful stuff, and its time for mainstream sects to seriously start disavowing this Nationalistic, Racist bunk.  The Patristic writer St Augustine in 400 AD viewed Genesis as a myth, and most serious theologians of mainstream Christianity today in the face of linguistic, archeological and other evidence see it as tribal myths to buck the spirits of a down trodden people. This Evangelical outlook is a problem with roots in the Reformation. Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Chaldean, Armenian, Catholics and other traditional Christian sects can trace their heritage to the feast of Pentacost. In the Gospel of Matthew the very last words of Jesus are: “I will be with you until the end of the ages”. So where were the various Evangelical sects at the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon,etc
where the doctrines and teachings of Christianity were hammered out. The Evangelical weren’t, they disowned them, and in the process created this quest for validation, that these other sects do not have to deal with. It has led to a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, with an emphasis on the Old Testament, Creationism, and now this quasi-latter day Old Testament Israelite identification. Its time they admitted,that either they ceased to have anything to do with the New Testament which nullified the Old Testament and began a new era. There is no God striking down enemies in the New Testament. Or go back to the mainstream sects and admit they have been wandering in a desert of delusion for 500 years

Report this

By Jim Foley, December 20, 2009 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lets see, a female soldier gets pregnant and subsequently, court martialed.  Guilty of course, for the proof is in the lab reports.  Said pregnant soldier is sentenced to a term in the stockade and gives birth to a baby, born into a military corrections environment. 
In the furture, will we prosecute said pregnant soldier if it’s found out she had a cigarette after said sex.  As congress is considering banning smoking by Armed Forces personnel on active duty

Report this

By truedigger3, December 20, 2009 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

I wrote:

“am just wondering why the men and women involved use conracpetives “

I meant to write:

am just wondering why the men and women involved are not using conracpetives .... ”

Report this

By truedigger3, December 20, 2009 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

c Quil wrote:
“Are they going to courtmartial the father, too? Unless we’re looking at miracles here, I don’t think those women could manage it all by themselves.
___________________________________________________

Yes, both parties to a pregnancy will be court-martialed.
Now any pregnant soldier is shipped back home which make you wonder, are these women use pregnancy to go back home?
I am just wondering why the men and women involved use conracpetives or condoms? Are we having a disciplined military or an animal farm?
I don’t agree with the war but I fully agree with the general orders.!

Report this

By sadatate, December 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Will it be alright with the general if those soldiers get abortions ??

Report this

By diamond, December 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

Not marching into the dark ages. You’re already there. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

Report this

By Dr. Frankie, December 20, 2009 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

A little bit more stupid and we’ll be watering the General twice a week.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, December 20, 2009 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

I feel sorry for the military, when they are forced to make miliary decisions based on mis guided political thinking.

A pregnant women should not be in a combat theater, under no condtions. This is just common sense.

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, December 20, 2009 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

I think some of you believe women should get a fair shake in the U.S.  Read some history, you daft idiots.

Report this

By felipe, December 20, 2009 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

C Quil
Yes this regulation applies to both the mother and father.  It says a soldier cannot get pregnant or impregnate another soldier.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 20, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

Well isn’t that nice. Many of our women soldiers are the victims of rape-by our own military personnel. But if the victims of this violence against women try to report this crime, it is the victim who once again is screwed over by Americas War policies.

Seems the longer we stay in the M.E. to supposedly bring more freedom to the oppressed women over there-according to the former administration as one of the false reasons we are over there-the more rights and freedoms we Americans seem to be losing, especially for women.

From the pregnancy police to force all pregnancies to term to penalizing women for getting pregnant, this country needs to get the hell out of the uterus’s of women all over the world, but especially the bodies of our American women.

When men can become pregnant and give birth, then they too can have a say in reproductive choices, until then they need to shut up and sit down.

Report this

By ardee, December 20, 2009 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

There seems to be increasing evidence of a right wing christian takeover of our military…...What is next I wonder.

Report this

By felicity, December 20, 2009 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

What better argument is there that gays should be allowed in the military - and especially on battlefields.  In fact, let’s make gayness a prerequisite for military duty.

Report this

By samosamo, December 20, 2009 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

Is this more evidence of the ‘penistagon’s’ taking more control
over other’s lives, and surly this will not affect those whose rank
is major or colonel and above as I believe any of them are now
considered above ‘the law’ or ‘any law’.

Report this

By keith, December 20, 2009 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I really dont like when you guys put articles like this one, you act just like Fox
when they find something to just talk about.  Why shouldnt the female and male
receive a court-martial?  They are having sex in the battlefield not at home….. If
any person here thinks that this wrong then I finally understand what they mean
by the “extreme left”

Report this

By C Quil, December 20, 2009 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Are they going to courtmartial the father, too? Unless we’re looking at miracles here, I don’t think those women could manage it all by themselves.

Marching boldly into the dark ages with General Cuculo in the lead.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.