USAF war on women

MarieB

New Member
Why do people always think they are "special" and should be the exception to the rule?

Why doesn't she just get married?
 

Aerogal

USMC 1983-1995
I've known plenty of single parents in the military, male & female. But you have to abide by the rules - the child(ren) cannot intefere with your duties and assignments. You sign a contract, you have to abide by it. The services go out of their way to accommodate single parents and joint military households. And yes - we were a joint service family too. I gave up my career to keep us all together. Sacrifices were made, but other doors opened.

She's just a whiner - better off she's out.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I've known plenty of single parents in the military, male & female. But you have to abide by the rules - the child(ren) cannot intefere with your duties and assignments. You sign a contract, you have to abide by it. The services go out of their way to accommodate single parents and joint military households. And yes - we were a joint service family too. I gave up my career to keep us all together. Sacrifices were made, but other doors opened.

She's just a whiner - better off she's out.
People like this woman will get hired by the left to be the poster child for reform in the military. There was a day where it was unimaginable that gays would be openly accepted into the military. Yet here we are. I can imagine she will win and, once again, change the landscape of the military.

The military is no longer a force of national defense; it is a great social experiment.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Unfortunate set of circumstances but it all boils down to this....

Citing a contract she signed in 2007 when she enrolled in ROTC at age 18, the Air Force said she committed a fraud by not reporting a change in her medical condition, as indicated in the contract.

The Air Force ejected her, noting in its ruling, "It is not the responsibility of the staff to constantly remind you of the terms of your contract."
It further stated that her file contained eight forms in which she was briefed on the medical change reporting requirement. Edmonds said no one ever brought the issue up during her subsequent counseling sessions while she was enrolled at Marquette.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
People like this woman will get hired by the left to be the poster child for reform in the military. There was a day where it was unimaginable that gays would be openly accepted into the military. Yet here we are. I can imagine she will win and, once again, change the landscape of the military.

The military is no longer a force of national defense; it is a great social experiment.
Okay, well, #1 there is nothing that prevents a gay person from performing their duties within the military. #2, there are such things as desk jobs in the military that do not require combat ability. #3, while I'm at it, there are any number of jobs that physically disabled people can do just fine.

And #4, I'm not a huge fan of staging some attention whore protest to change the status quo BUT I take back my previous post. There's no reason why this woman shouldn't be able to serve, even though she's pregnant. That is not current policy, but the only way policies get changed is when someone stages an attention whore protest. If she were a construction supervisor or a nurse or a waitress, they wouldn't give her pregnancy a second thought.

Supposedly enlistment numbers are down, yet they're turning away able bodies? That makes no sense to me.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Okay, well, #1 there is nothing that prevents a gay person from performing their duties within the military. #2, there are such things as desk jobs in the military that do not require combat ability. #3, while I'm at it, there are any number of jobs that physically disabled people can do just fine.

And #4, I'm not a huge fan of staging some attention whore protest to change the status quo BUT I take back my previous post. There's no reason why this woman shouldn't be able to serve, even though she's pregnant. That is not current policy, but the only way policies get changed is when someone stages an attention whore protest. If she were a construction supervisor or a nurse or a waitress, they wouldn't give her pregnancy a second thought.

Supposedly enlistment numbers are down, yet they're turning away able bodies? That makes no sense to me.
The pregnancy is not the problem. The presence of a child dependent on a single-parent (mother or father) is the problem. If the military had a policy that allowed single parents or near-term single mothers to enlist, the military would become a safe haven for every person stuck with a child or proto-child and no source for health insurance/housing/etc.

A single parent must make arrangements for the immediate assumption of responsibility for the child should the parent have to deploy on short notice (like if a responsible President wanted to deploy crack troops to someplace like Benghazi to save the life of someone, say, an Ambassador). Having commanded single women with children, provision of child-care was the single most critical readiness issue for the same people year-after-year-after-year. Some had to be separated because the mothers of these military members did not want to honor their promise to take care of the grandchild.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Okay, I didn't read that part. So I'll unretract my first post, but my second post still stands.
You do make good points in the 2nd. When I joined and was shipping out for boot camp, all of the females were given pregancy tests before they left for bootcamp. Anyone who tested + was sent home.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Okay, well, #1 there is nothing that prevents a gay person from performing their duties within the military. #2, there are such things as desk jobs in the military that do not require combat ability. #3, while I'm at it, there are any number of jobs that physically disabled people can do just fine.

And #4, I'm not a huge fan of staging some attention whore protest to change the status quo BUT I take back my previous post. There's no reason why this woman shouldn't be able to serve, even though she's pregnant. That is not current policy, but the only way policies get changed is when someone stages an attention whore protest. If she were a construction supervisor or a nurse or a waitress, they wouldn't give her pregnancy a second thought.

Supposedly enlistment numbers are down, yet they're turning away able bodies? That makes no sense to me.
I’m not defending or disputing the prospect of gays ability to serve in the military. I have articulated the potential LOGISTICAL problems it could create in the current military environment, but I also realize gays can serve just as honorably as anyone else.

I’m trying to point out how these things get USED to promote further changes in military rules and structure. Fact of the matter is, she could have gotten pregnant the day after she was commissioned and would not have had a problem according to the rules; but it does create an issue in terms of deployability. It happens all the time that women get pregnant to avoid deployment. The military encourages family, but in the background it has caused so many problems in keeping a strong deployable force.

It seems most people join the military these days for the benefits (medical, education, etc…) rather than for reason of being part of a force for WAR. Whether people realize it or not our military’s SOLE purpose is to prepare to fight wars in defense of this country. But it’s become more of a focus on how we can integrate more circumstances that detract from that ability.
 
Last edited:

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Edmonds, her family and her attorney claim that the Air Force is encouraging its members to give up their children, through either adoption or abortion, a position they say was revealed in a comment from an Air Force colonel.
In a letter responding to Ryan's inquiry on Edmonds' case, Col. Kelly L. Goggins wrote, "If Ms. Edmonds had reported her pregnancy she would have been placed on medical recheck status until she gave birth. At that time she would have been been able to commission if she were not a single parent, for example, if she were married, or had given the child up for adoption."
I like how they put the "abotion" buzz word in the article, but the letter they cite doesn't mention it at all.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
#2, there are such things as desk jobs in the military that do not require combat ability. #3, while I'm at it, there are any number of jobs that physically disabled people can do just fine.
The Air Force thinks you are either world wide qualified or you are not. If you are not world wide qualified then you probably are going to find it tough to stay in.

When I was in, I was diagnosed with cancer and was sent to Bethesda (I was stationed at NAS Rota at the time). After my treatment at Bethesda, I had to see the medical board. The board determined that my condition was still too much of an uncertainty, so I was no longer world wide qualified, so they medically retired (TDRL) me. When the Navy docs heard about this they stated that had I been in the Navy, they would have just stationed me near one of the medical facilities (Bethesda, San Diego, etc.).

I was not in a "combat" type of position per se, although I could have been sent to an operating base somewhere if needed. Years of working VIP airplanes doesn't really prepare one for combat aircraft maintenance.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Okay, well, #1 there is nothing that prevents a gay person from performing their duties within the military. #2, there are such things as desk jobs in the military that do not require combat ability. #3, while I'm at it, there are any number of jobs that physically disabled people can do just fine.

And #4, I'm not a huge fan of staging some attention whore protest to change the status quo BUT I take back my previous post. There's no reason why this woman shouldn't be able to serve, even though she's pregnant. That is not current policy, but the only way policies get changed is when someone stages an attention whore protest. If she were a construction supervisor or a nurse or a waitress, they wouldn't give her pregnancy a second thought.

Supposedly enlistment numbers are down, yet they're turning away able bodies? That makes no sense to me.
2,3 and 4 is why they depend on civilians, we do those jobs.

Military members are supposed to be deployable and combat ready, if their job doesn't require it, it shouldn't be a military billet.

She knew the rules, she broke the rules.

And ENLISTMENT numbers are down, that's different than scholarships, free college educations, and being commissioned as an officer.
 
Last edited:

puggymom

Active Member
I was just amused how she cherry picks which parts of her faith to harumph about :shrug:
I remember having this arguement with a girl in college. She was anti BC pills but she was my roomate so I knew she was having sex with her BF. She did not have a reply to my "well isn't premarital sex also against your religion?"
 
Top