Expecting a Court Martial: General Announces New Policy to Court Martial Pregnant Women in Iraq

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo has announced that getting pregnant or impregnating a fellow soldier is an offense punishable by a court-martial in Iraq. He has stated that he will not charge women who are raped.

The order for the 22,000 soldiers under Cucolo’s command has been justified on the basis that they cannot lose soldier to this form of friendly fire: “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.”

What Cucolo needs is a catchy campaign slogan.

When I worked for Mo Udall in one of his campaigns, I was surprised to see a poster that read “Vote for Mo Udall, War Hero.” I asked him how a man with a glass eye got into World War II, let alone became a war hero. It was a long and hilarious story. However, to cut it short, Udall said that he tricked his way through the physical exam and made it through officer school before anyone noticed. He was then sent to an island where the greatest threat to the troops was venereal disease. Udall quickly drew up a poster that read “BEAT THE AXIS WITH PROPHYLAXIS.” (That was the inspiration of the short-lived title for the Animal House video that read “Beat the Nazis with Voting Proxies,” which attracted such attention of late on another blog). The Navy was so thrilled with the poster, they gave Udall a small medal — allowing him to run as a war hero.

Do you have any suggestions for Cucolo? Something like “BEAT THE INSURGENCY WITH CELIBRACY” . . .

For the full story, click here.

49 Responses to “Expecting a Court Martial: General Announces New Policy to Court Martial Pregnant Women in Iraq”


  1. 1 Elaine M. 1, December 22, 2009 at 10:34 am

    Rather than telling the soldiers they will be court-martialed for the offense of getting pregnant/impregnating a fellow soldier–I think the soldiers should be threatened with the humiliation of public condomnation.

  2. 2 Elaine M. 1, December 22, 2009 at 10:37 am

    BTW, I loved the story about Mo Udall. Sometimes it does pay to be a versifier.

  3. 3 Kipper 1, December 22, 2009 at 10:56 am

    “Stop the insurrection, use protection”

    “Continue the struggle, only cuddle”

    “Always pull out so America doesn’t have to”

  4. 4 Jill 1, December 22, 2009 at 11:07 am

    Kipper,

    Those were hilarious.

    I say, get the hell pregnant, get the woman you love pregnant and get the hell out of these unholy, unjust wars.

    It was so thoughtful of him to not include women who were raped. Rape is a huge problem, one the army simply refuses to address. Was this dude a former priest?

  5. 5 metalfrog 1, December 22, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Keep wrapped to stay in Iraq.

  6. 6 Anon 1, December 22, 2009 at 11:30 am

    “Loose hips sink ships” ?

    “Operation Enduring Abstinence” ?

    “The Marines are looking for a few good Trojans” ?

    “Uncle Sam Wants YOU to Zip It” ?

  7. 7 CEJ 1, December 22, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Don’t Ask…Don’t Tell…
    Don’t give me hell…
    I was only following orders!

  8. 8 rafflaw 1, December 22, 2009 at 11:46 am

    Jill,
    Your suggestion kind of reminds me of the ways Dick Cheney used to get out of service in Vietnam. It worked for him, so it might work now. I do not agree, however, that becoming pregnant while on active duty should be a criminal act. Doesn’t US law consider pregnancy a disability? Shouldn’t the Army be held to that same standard?

  9. 9 eniobob@live.com 1, December 22, 2009 at 11:49 am

    “. He has stated that he will not charge women who are raped.”

    Thats mighty big of you sir!!

  10. 10 Former Federal LEO 1, December 22, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Of only one thang I am certain in this article,

    Cuculo aint no gigolo

  11. 11 chris 1, December 22, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Rafflaw,

    If you are deployed forward and you become pregnant or get a woman pregnant then that person is not mission capable. This not only affects that persons ability to do their job, but can also have serious effects on their fellow marines/sailors/soldiers/airmen. Once someone becomes pregnant they then have to return to the states and another person has to be deployed in their place. I spent a lot of time in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was well known that you could be punished for getting pregnant or getting a woman pregnant.

  12. 12 MacK 1, December 22, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    Let me guess next it will be if you get the flu, you get 15 days in the clink. If you give that flu to maybe 10 others in your unit 180 days for you, also do not forget the 10 still get 15 days each. If you break your leg while getting up to pee in the middle of the night that will receive 45 days.

    Maybe someone needs to stop this BS ball from rolling now before it snowballs into even more stupidity.

  13. 13 Bdaman 1, December 22, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    General Backs Off on Court Martials for Pregnant Soldiers
    Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo: Seven Soldiers Have Violated Pregnancy Policy So Far

    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/general-backs-off-threat-court-martial-pregnant-soldiers/story?id=9399604

  14. 14 rcampbell 1, December 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    I have long advocated for women to have equal opportunities in work, education and life in general as well as full combat roles in te armed services. And I’m generally not a big fan of the military whose rules often strike me as draconian, arbitrary and steeped in backward thinking. However, on this issue I think the general makes a valid point about combat readiness and availability. Preganacy is not an option for male soldiers and therefore probably ought not be one for females for the duration of their military committment. Getting pregnant could conceivably (pun intended) be used as a way to avoid duties others cannot avoid. This constitutes preferential treatment that compromises the concept of equality.

    One of the arguements used to keep women from equal treatment in the military (think submarines) has been the sexual distraction to men caused by having women integrated into the ranks. The counter arguement has been to question why men can’t seem to control themselves in the presence of women. Allowing special treatment for pregnant soldiers weakens the inclusion argument.

    Progressives want to see an end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to allow equal treatment for gays in the armed services. Again, I see allowing women to get pregnant as a detriment to that effort.

  15. 15 chris 1, December 22, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    rcampbell,

    I agree with you but raise one concern. In the Marine Corps the standards for women physically are different than that of men. Don’t you think that if women were allowed to serve in combat units that the physical standards should be the same?

  16. 16 CEJ 1, December 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    “Major General Cucolo has announced that getting pregnant or impregnating a fellow soldier is an offense punishable by court martial in Iraq”… so I am now happy to announce the end of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” gays are now welcome to join/stay in the service!

  17. 17 TomD.Arch 1, December 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Along those lines, how about:

    GBLT Soldiers are always ready for Action!

    (Come to think of it, many trannies are among the toughest folks around. Wouldn’t being charged by a platoon of bad-assed trannies scare the hell out of Talib/al Qaeda fighters? Why do we fight with one arm tied behind our backs? ;^) )

  18. 18 lottakatz 1, December 22, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Apparently getting pregnant is more of a ‘criminal act’ than being a rapist based on the planned policy. I’m glad the policy was reversed but I’m suspicious that the penalty for the ‘impregnating’ party would have been enforced at the same level of zeal as the crime of rape.

    I’m not equating the two except to indicate that I have little faith that a disciplinable ‘act’ that should fall evenly on both a male and female actor would receive the same pursuit to closure based on the proven track record of the military to pursue disciplinable ‘acts’ involving male on female violence.

    “Rapists in the ranks
    Sexual assaults are frequent, and frequently ignored, in the armed services”
    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-harman31mar31,0,3129956.story

    This is a 2008 story, reports are up at least 9% this year.

  19. 19 Benji 1, December 22, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    Withdrawal: It’s Not Just For Iraq Anymore

  20. 20 Anonymously Yours 1, December 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Benji thats good.

    I guess his wife was seduced by a Junior officer and now the man is mad….

  21. 21 Tootie 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:09 am

    Both guilty parties should have to repay all the money they earned in the military (after they have been kicked out).

    They should get no V.A. benefits. All awards should be revoked. Pensions denied.

    That might make them think twice.

    (Making a toast to Patsy Schroeder). *clink*

  22. 22 pinandpuller 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:09 am

    rafflaw

    The Army does happen to consider pregnancy a disability-duh!

  23. 23 KC Law 1, December 23, 2009 at 2:39 am

    I wonder what the general’s opinion of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is. Maybe he can recruit all the gay soldiers to his unit and reduce the whole problem.

  24. 24 Anonymously Yours 1, December 23, 2009 at 7:56 am

    An All Gay Unit. Would then a man servant be in Order? Would Pedantry be a benefit of the unit? Nah, that would take us back to the time of the Spartans.

  25. 25 Dredd 1, December 23, 2009 at 9:54 am

    This gives new meaning to convoluted Afghanistan policy. Have you seen the graphic detail?

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/12/way-out-of-afghanistan-is-way-out.html

  26. 26 Dredd 1, December 23, 2009 at 9:56 am

    How about beat your meat if you can’t take the heat?

  27. 27 Elaine M. 1, December 23, 2009 at 11:03 am

    Commander Says He Won’t Court-Martial Pregnant Soldiers, Refuses To Make Plan B More Available
    (Think Progress, 12/23/2009)

    EXCERPT:
    Even though women under Cucolo’s command may not be jailed for becoming pregnant, pregnancies are still strongly discouraged. However, Cucolo said that he has no plans to expand soldiers’ access to emergency contraception (Plan B). “We do not provide any abortive services to our soldiers,” he told reporters yesterday. “There’s nothing like that here.” Military physicians are currently barred from performing abortions on bases overseas, but Plan B has NOTHING to do with having an abortion. Emergency contraception is often hard to find at U.S. military bases around the world, since health facilities are “allowed to stock contraception but aren’t required to.” Sens. Al Franken (D-MN) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) recently introduced legislation that would require them to stock the contraceptives.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/23/pregnant-court-martial/

  28. 28 Jill 1, December 23, 2009 at 11:18 am

    Elaine,

    That is very important information. It shows the essential hypocrisy towards women and I believe, it is indicative of the christian war on women in today’s army. Many of our army’s top people want to establish the US and other (muslim) countries as a christian nations (specifically, their own type of christian nation). They wish to irradiate other religions and they would like control over women’s bodies. Our civilian “health care” bill is more of the same.

  29. 29 Elaine M. 1, December 23, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Jill–

    Here’s a tweet from Jeremy Scahill that includes a link to a photograph:

    “RT @dangerroom: Dear G.I.: Please don’t wear your ‘crusader’ patch on patrol in a Muslim country. http://bit.ly/6eKb3g

    http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9704/44838166.jpg

  30. 30 Jill 1, December 23, 2009 at 11:41 am

    WOW, and we wonder why “they hate us”. Gosh, just because we want to destroy their country and remake it in the image of our own insane leaders, that’s nothing to get so upset about.

  31. 31 Buddha Is Laughing 1, December 23, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Summary:

    Ridiculous.

    Morons.

    Biology happens, General Confusion.

    If you weren’t such a bunch of half-witted homophobes at the command level this would be less of an issue simply as a matter of fact.

    You know, I always thought Brigadier General Jack Ripper died in “Dr. Strangelove”. But judging by the fine display of “military intelligence” on display here, I see he survived the head wound and got a bump from Brigadier to Major General.

    DOD? You really let people with this level of illogic be in charge of weapons? Yeah. That sounds like a good idea.

  32. 32 Admiral Bullwhip 1, December 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Members of the U.S. Armed Forces are considered to be government property. Their “duty” is to be ready for combat. A pregnant woman is not ready for combat.

    If you’re not prepared to make sacrifices in order to remain combat ready, don’t join the military.

  33. 33 Buddha Is Laughing 1, December 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    If you aren’t smart enough to deal with basic biology and not treat it as a crime, then you shouldn’t join the military either.

  34. 34 Elaine M. 1, December 23, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    Admiral Bullwhip–

    What of the male soldiers who impregnate fellow female soldiers because they can’t be bothered to use protection? Are they making sacrifices?

  35. 35 Admiral Bullwhip 1, December 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Elaine M.,

    The simple answer is; no. I know that doesn’t seem fair, but this has nothing to do with fair. It has to do with one’s personal responsibility to maintain readiness.

  36. 36 Elaine M. 1, December 23, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Admiral Bullwhip–

    This seems to put the entire onus of pregnant soldiers on one sex. Both sexes should be called to account for not using protection when they are having sexual relations–and not just because one partner might get pregnant…but because of the transmission of STD’s, which could also pose a great problem for the military.

  37. 37 Buddha Is Laughing 1, December 23, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Yeah.

    Readiness.

    It has noting to do with illogic and a denial about the reality of biology.

    What color is the sky in your world?

    If readiness is the issue? Issue condoms or reversible vasectomies. Problem solved and no one is label criminal because of their gender.

    Making biology criminal as simply stupid. That’s NOT being ready. That’s being STUPID.

    Logic. Get some.

  38. 38 chris 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    They’re not getting in trouble for having sex, but for getting pregnant. So it is about readiness.

    Elaine,
    I believe that it is his policy to punish males and females.

  39. 39 Elaine M. 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    chris–

    I understand that. I also spoke to the point about the importance of soldiers using protection in regard to the transmission of STD’s causing problems for the military. In addition, it will be obvious who is pregnant–not so obvious who the impregnators are. I wonder if all the women soldiers who become pregnant will be willing to fink on their lovers.

  40. 40 chris 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    Elaine,

    I just recently got out of the Marine Corps. I knew a lot of female Marines and they all had access to either a shot or enough birth control to last them throughout a deployment. Men can also take as many condoms as they want with them. I can also speak to the difficulty in maintaining readiness when a Marine has to be sent home. You are then a person short but the expectations are no different.

  41. 41 chris 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    I believe you can also be punished for contracting an STD.

  42. 42 Elaine M. 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    chris–

    I understand the problem–but what are civilians like me to make of Cucolo’s refusal to make Plan B more available?: “Commander Says He Won’t Court-Martial Pregnant Soldiers, Refuses To Make Plan B More Available”

    I’m adding the link to the article again for your convenience.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/23/pregnant-court-martial/

    Personally, I’d like to see all our military return home ASAP.

  43. 43 Admiral Bullwhip 1, December 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Biology?

    Is this an affirmative defense? They just can’t help themselves?

    “If you weren’t such a bunch of half-witted homophobes at the command level this would be less of an issue simply as a matter of fact.”

    ????

  44. 44 Buddha Is Laughing 1, December 23, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    You’re inability to comprehend the birds and the bees or that the simple fact is homosexuals don’t produce offspring from their pairing is irrelevant.

    Sex happens, genius. Hetero and Homo alike. If left alone long enough, masturbation happens too. Only rarely does celibacy spontaneously break out. I’ve seen it happen though. Especially when the mating choices are Neocons. You can do your own research, but eventually both men and women are going to find some way to relieve the sexual tension. Simple fact. You know, SEX, that other primal urge like HUNGER and THIRST. The one that doesn’t go away unless you are brain damaged or drugged. Life replicates and some life, including dolphins and many primates – which means humans BTW, will also engage in the replication activities simply because they are

    1) fun,

    2) a biological imperative and

    3) a way to release endorphins – the brain chemistry for both happiness and satisfaction.

    Now who the Hell in war zone would want to relieve some tension? Huh? More like “DUH!”

    So making it a crime for nature to follow its course makes about as much sense being upset because a square peg won’t fit in a round hole.

    So until you start a “super soldier” program that removes the sex drive from all troops?

    This isn’t a problem that is going away or that courts martial are capable of addressing except with empty lip flapping, poor rationale based on “readiness” like you are dealing with machines instead of people, and a plan to action that is doomed to failure. And that doom prediction? You bet your reasoning against mine if you like. Mine is based on 250,000 years of evolution. Yours seems based on some kind of jar-headed ignorance and wishful thinking.

    Logic isn’t your strong suit, Cap’n.

  45. 45 DavidG. 1, December 23, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    Why doesn’t the General realize that if the troops procreate, that that will make up for casualties and those who are left limbless.

    It also means that the children can be introduced to army life earlier than usual which makes brainwashing them about how killing people is a good thing easier.

    Hopefully the General will reverse his edict and introduce ‘Insemination Booths’ to facilitate…well, it’s self-evident!

  46. 46 Jill 1, December 23, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    David G.,

    The Obama administration would like to take this opportunity to welcome you aboard! :)

  47. 47 DavidG. 1, December 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    Jill, do you think I might qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize based upon my make-love philosophy?

  48. 48 Jill 1, December 23, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    No. The essence of the Nobel Peace Prize is the willingness and actual engagement in war. You show promise, so work your ideas harder and perhaps you will some day achieve the War is Peace Prize that you covet.

  49. 49 nick33333 1, December 24, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    I really don’t see what the problem is here. If you’re in the army you have responsibilities, if you get pregnant they cannot be fulfilled. So why should it be ok to get pregnant? It’s not hard to prevent. But I do disagree with the lack of availability of plan B, if it’s pregnancy you’re trying to prevent…..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Turley Tweets

Click here to follow the blog on Twitter.

SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL OPINION BLOG (2011)

SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG (2008)

blawg100_2008_winner9349c7

Winner — Top Opinion Writer By Aspen Institute and The Week Magazine for Best Single-Issue Advocacy (Civil Liberties)

Categories

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 595 other followers