For John, BLUF: The Army doesn't knowingly deploy pregnant soldiers. Nothing to see here; just move along.
At a previous post, Kad Barma commented:
Is it that hard to understand that "I cannot think of any more unreasonable search than the government insisting they need to know if a woman might be pregnant"?This Spring the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, a helicopter unit based near Ansbach, Germany, deployed subordinate units to Afghanistan. it being the Army, there were female soldiers. To the surprise of one soldier, and her chain of command, she delivered herself of a baby boy some time over the Summer. She, and the baby, we're immediately returned to Germany. The question on some minds was why she was in Afghanstan in the first place. Quoting the Stars and Stripes 25 October 2012 article by Reporter Steven Beardsley:
Army regulations require all female soldiers undergo a urine pregnancy test 30 days before deployment, and those who test positive are to be referred for further evaluation, according to a statement from the Europe Regional Medical Command.The Army doesn't deploy pregnant soldiers, or at least works to avoid it. Therefore "they need to know if a woman might be pregnant".
Or should pregnant women deploy to a combat assignment?
Regards — Cliff
-0 S2 0.5
5 comments:
Are you seriously asking me/us to equate the army needing to know physical condition of soldiers for the battlefield with needing to know pregnancy status of common citizens?
Weak. Borderline offensive, but mostly just weak.
The army checks for all sorts of things, and soldiers sign up knowing the army will check for all sorts of things. I imagine the army would need to know about heart conditions and all sorts of other diseases we all agree are private personal matters under any other private context. (Read up on HIPAA laws if you are unclear on the difference of what should and shouldn't be public, let alone government knowledge).
Please.
Sorry. Your statement seemed to allow for no exceptions.
Frankly, I don't think the Government should care if you are pregnant, except to the extent it should have laws protecting the conceived (and thus the mother) from decidedly toxic environments. That said, at some point point in the gestation the Government should care about protecting the [whatever we decide to call it] from "elimination" by the mother.
Regards — Cliff
re HIPPA, did you read the part about releasing your records to military authorities?
Regards — Cliff
I can't not go into detail, due to confidentiality but yes at DCF we do inquire about pregnancy a lot. Of mothers and of teens. Why? Because they need to get proper prenatal care or do into rehab immediately. Or in case of a minor teen, go in front of judge if she want to terminate the pregnancy.
In general, those who have the baby do well turning themselves around. They have something 'to live for'. In the most general sense, those who have abortion, sometimes more then one, the only thing they have is their drug habit.
Exactly. HIPAA (two A's, only one P) gets it right, and this is exactly what I meant by "read up on the HIPAA laws if you are unclear on the difference". The MHS is a necessary exception and is clearly made. This does NOT invalidate the core premise that medical information is a privacy right of the highest order. In fact, by MHS being made as a specific exception, I would say HIPAA actually emphasizes the primacy of personal privacy interest over general government interest.
My point is that doing the "angels on the head of a pin" thing with "some point in the gestation" being translated to conception is to mistakenly apply government "protections" as a basis for government overreach and outright oppression of huge portions of the population.
I'm sorry, but nowhere in our collective interest in the rights and protections of one are we in the habit of rejecting and eradicating the rights of another except in this one bizarre (bizarre in the extremes of the emotions) and extremely emotional case. Imagine we apply this "competing interest" precedent to income redistribution. It's clear the impoverished need money more than the wealthy. Shall we then say the rich have no rights to their wealth once the needs of the poor exist? No, income isn't life and death, but you are saying in the "conception" argument that the mother has no right to manage her own body when the government rules the interest of a zygote has preceded hers.
We recognize privacy and property rights in all other cases, but somehow with the zygotes there are legion who would throw it all out the window in favor of an unproven and hypothetical spiritual concept. Sure, I do not disagree that we should better honor and preserve and nurture life. But let's also be adults about this: fewer fetuses would be harmed if we did a better job focusing on and caring for women before they become impregnated by everyone from "boyfriends" to rapists.
Post a Comment