Army charges mom for refusing to leave infant

Source: Kevin Fagan, San Francisco Chronicle

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson was gung-ho in 2007 when she enlisted in the Army straight out of high school in East Oakland. She'd done three years in the ROTC, and this was her ticket to rock-solid stability, she told relatives.

Now a single mother in uniform, she wants nothing more than to be a civilian again, her mother says - but she may have to spend a couple of years in military prison before that can happen.

The 21-year-old Army cook was charged this week with four court-martial counts for refusing to leave her infant son behind to go to Afghanistan in November with her unit.

Hutchinson is posted at the Hunter Army Airfield outside Savannah, Ga., and for now is serving her normal duties, said base spokesman Kevin Larson. No arraignment date has been set.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/14/MNNE1BHR5T.DTL

---

Hutchinson's son Kamani went to military day care and then stayed with Hutchinson's mother. Seriously, the army wants to incarcerate a mother for 2 years just because she cares about her son? Some great American values right there! Why did the military also take two months to decide to press charges?

She enlisted. Allowing her to just refuse to report for duty would set a dangerous precedent...and it violates the terms of her enlistment.

Although I have compassion for this girl and this certainly doesn't look good for the Army, she has an obligation entered into voluntarily that she can't simply shirk because it's inconvenient.

And I also fear pursuing this type of thing gives ammo to misogynist assholes, i.e., "this is proof women shouldn't serve..." etc. If you look at the comments to the article you can see a few of them rearing their ugly heads already.

The miIitary shouId make provisions for parents (either sex) who have smaII chiIdren and not expect them to be depIoyed in a region where the chiId is not aIIowed to be. Such thinking is not just misogynistic, but is aIso bad for society. Just because something has aIways been so, does not make it right.

It does terrible damage to small children to be suddenly left with strangers. I dont care how kind the strangers are. It is very tramatic for the baby.

And even moreso for the father.

If a woman can get out of deployment by having a baby at will, then women won't get good promotions. The women who work hard to advance and are willing to live up to their obligations, as well as the consequences of their actions, will be harmed to protect the few women who are not willing to live up to their obligations or the consequences of their actions - like the woman in this article.

The biggest danger for women in all professions is people who would accept this conservative idea and feed it.

you can say that all you want, but 95% of them will be women, so women will be harmed because.

I don't see what the problem is here. You volunteer for the Army, you know that there is a chance you will be deployed. If you can't make arrangements for someone to keep your kid if you are deployed, then don't have a kid while you are in the Army.

What is difficult about this?

Lucky for us the military doesn't agree with you nearly all the time. She is being treated as the exception.

billed for whatever bonus she was paid for signing up and whatever money was spent on training her.

She doesn't want out of the military and the 3000 others in recent years were not dishonorably discharged.

That's awesome? Can anyone take part in this program?

She's been so reliable in the past?

Yes, she has been reliable in the past. ROTC and never a prior discipline problem.

Or at least giving the money back.

should have known that before going in. Now she can at least pay back the money.

I.e., discriminatory treatment of childless vs. child-bearing soldiers. Not saying it's not possible...

Again I feel compassion for this girl and her child but she is obligated under the law as it currently stands to honor her enlistment.

Gay and lesbian couples can have children too. If one parent dies, extend the children the same compassion.

Ack, you referred to gay and lesbian people down thread. Maybe you meant any childless person? I still don't agree but will have to think about it.

there is nothing in the Constitution (or in law, for that matter) which prohibits discrimination based on parenthood (or the lack thereof).

Child-less folk receive less income tax breaks and pay for the education of other people's children through property taxes. That is fair for some, not for others.

It's fair for everyone to support schools.

An educated public benefits all of us, not just those of us with children.

The increased tax exemptions for people with kids is a drop in the bucket of the expense of raising them.

and now that they are grown up, their money better not be invested in the nation's children, it's not like they are children anymore, they got theirs. Stupid short sighted selfishness to such extremes must make Reagan and the modern day conservative proud.

It's difficult for me not to be disappointed with Dems who parrot the rightwing ideas. Then I realize I may be blaming the victim. I like to think I aggressively attack these ideas but when they are so rooted in people's brains, the criticism is easy to take personally. I will get better, but it is going to take time.

Thank you for calling this out. I have been watching the discussion on this story pretty closely but just blew this off earlier, but I think we really can't do that if we are going to win the battle between progressive and conservative ideas.

Please don't infer that I am a Republican. How dare you.

I don't think anyone would think you were a Republican from this one comment or that response.

No problem really, but it is rather an ugly term.

There is a process that parents in uniform go through as the unit prepares to deploy. That their children are cared for is the centerpiece of it, including if something happens to them. The solider in question had the time to make alternative arrangements and did not. It has nothing to do with gender or race.

This is DA Form 5305--Army Family Care Plan.

http://mdngfamilysupport.com/new/DA%20Form%205305.pdf

Since you probably won't click on it, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, we will look at item C:

C. I understand the importance of ensuring the proper care for my family members, and ensuring my own readiness and deployability as well. I further understand that in light of the critical nature of both these requirements:
1. Failure to make and maintain adequate family member care arrangements in accordance with the Army's policy is grounds for disciplinary action or separation.
2. Nonavailability for worldwide assignment and/or unit deployment may lead to my separation from the Army.
3. If arrangements for the care of my family members fail to work, I am not automatically excused from prescribed duties, unit deployment, or reassignment.
4. If I fail to maintain a Family Care Plan or provide false information regarding my plan, I am subject to separation, administrative action, or disciplinary action under (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
5. I must maintain an up-to-date Family Care Plan and revise my Plan when circumstances change. I understand that Family Care Plans may be tested at the discretion of the commander.
6. I will receive no special consideration in duty assignments or duty stations based on my responsibilities for my family members unless enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) in accordance with AR 600-75.

And D:
D. I have made all necessary arrangements (legal, educational, financial, religious, special, etc.) to ensure a smooth, rapid turnover of family member care responsibilities in case this plan is implemented.

I'm sorry to sound like such a hardass, but single parents are NOT uncommon in the military, and MOST of them make good Family Care Plans. If this woman couldn't be bothered with making an FCP that would work...well, I have no sympathy for her.

had an FCP that would work?

I could care less for an apology for sounding like a hardass. She is being treated as an extremely rare exception. Cruel and unusual punishment, not just applied to criminals anymore, am I right?

"Couldn't be bothered"? Do you even listen to the your bias and pre-judging? Thank gawd, the military has rules that are more humane than what you advocate.

I am aware of my bias by the way. It sickens me that so many DU'ers hold uglier opinions than our own military. Every injustice can be rationalized by arguments the likes of yours, no offense.

(These are all active duty numbers. The Selected Reserve and National Guard troops who are also required to maintain Family Care Plans are not in these figures. Endstrength numbers come from the Department of Defense, single parent figures from Rod Powers' about.com page--he's pretty reliable on this stuff.)

The United States Army's FY 2009 endstrength was 525,400. 10.7 percent of those troops are single parents, or 56,217.
The United States Navy's FY 2009 endstrength was 329,098. 7.6 percent of those sailors are single parents, or 25,011.
The US Air Force's FY 2009 endstrength was 329,563. 5.8 percent of those airmen are single parents, or 19,114.
The US Marine Corps' FY 2009 endstrength was 189,000. 4.7 percent of those Marines are single parents, or 8,883.

Throw 36,000 dual military couples--husband and wife are both in the military--with children, and you're looking at 145,225 total families that must maintain Family Care Plans. The three thousand soldiers who've been discharged for inadequate FCPs represent a bit over two percent of the total.

Admittedly, the figures are somewhat distorted by the fact not all the troops have been sent to combat. Let's pull a wild number out of my ass and say half the Army has not deployed even once. We'll say all the 3000 troops who were kicked out for bad FCPs were scheduled to be sent downrange. So...using the assumption 72,612 FCP-required soldiers attempted to deploy and 3000 of them were removed and discharged for not taking care of their families' needs when they were supposed to, you're looking at a little over four percent who didn't care about their families. So...it's obviously possible to make a good FCP because over 95 percent of the soldiers who are required to make one have done so.

If this was ANY other readiness indicator, no one here would complain about two percent of the soldiers who had to do it getting kicked out for not doing their jobs--which is EXACTLY what this is about: soldiers not doing their jobs. When you get pregnant in the military, they make it exceptionally clear: if you decide to stay Army, you have to accommodate the needs of the Army; if you don't feel you can, getting out is pretty easy. The Army does a pretty decent job of taking care of soldiers with children. They've got childcare programs. They've got a program for families who have MR/DD kids called the Exceptional Family Member Program. If you've got an EFMP kid who needs a service they only have at Fort Bragg, they will assign you to Fort Bragg even if your job doesn't exist at Fort Bragg. The Army tries hard to take care of family members. They just need you to help out--and one of the biggest things you must do is complete a workable FCP.

"not taking care of their families' needs when they were supposed to, you're looking at a little over four percent who didn't care about their families."

This sounds really ignorant by the way. "didn't care about their families" just sounds like the statement of an ass.

"workable FCP"

Did you even read the story? Are you so full of facts and assumptions that you can't see the child?

Your dislike of the military blinds you to some simple facts:

1. She enlisted in the middle of a shooting war.
2. When she got pregnant she was given a LOT of counseling--it's a requirement in Army Regulation 600-20--that told her "you must have a family care plan that you know will work."
3. They gave her a MONTH to fix her FCP. She didn't do it.

Know something else? If Specialist Alexis Hutchinson were to walk into the manifesting area with her kid and tell 'em "look, my FCP is broken and I don't have anyone to take care of my child, I'm working on it though" the sergeant in charge of airload planning would have taken her unit's roster, drawn a line through SPC Hutchinson's name and that would have been the end of it. Yeah, she probably would have been chaptered out of the Army--Chapter 5 (discharge for the convenience of the government) would probably have been the choice; they're easy to do and don't really impact you in the civilian world--but she wouldn't be in trouble. But missing movement (Article 87, UCMJ) and absence without leave (Article 86, UCMJ) are court-martial offenses and she committed both.

To say I dislike the military is untrue and your assumption is offensive and baseless.

and children.

There are among us some heartless bastards full of rationalizations, not directing this at you.

Don't fear. If you are up to it, challenge the stupidity don't cower over the keyboard. Again not directing at you necessarily.

My state rep who captained several battle ships and is otherwise an inspiration mentions fearing the teabagger movement and never explains to my satisfaction. Stop fearing. Americans crave progressive messages even if a small percentage will always be authoritarian. But even some people I respect seem to cower from expressing a progressive message.

If you start a family after promising to be a soldier, either be a soldier, or pay the costs back for making you one, if you quit.

It makes no sense to imprison such people, just garnish their wages until they're paid back.

I can't help but think that none of the fellow soldiers of a single parent would begrudge an alternative. Sure there are a few lunatic exceptions, always are.

There are jobs that need to be performed at home, that seems like a reasonable alternative as well.

This is similar to the assclown US general in Northern Iraq that talked about court marshalling people that get pregnant or get someone pregnant and had to walk back after he experienced the shit storm. In that case, everyone could say, let's protect the pregnancy and soldier in the situation, but now that we have a post pregnancy and young child it is all about punishment, responsibility and YOYO. Responsibility of a single parent is to the child and what the phudge should we be fighting for if not the American family and future.

So I see the same ugliness in this case that is the rightwinger anti-privacy anti-women's health playing out. While it is a clump of cells it is sacred but once the child is born, he or she is on their own. You couldn't court marshal them in Iraq but here once a child exists, punish to the full extent. So, why are fellow DU'ers arguing the same way as rightwingers. I hope I explained my argument well because children are always more important than blastulas. DU'ers should be ashamed for not seeing their ugliness in this case.

We have many generations of soldiers who got "stuck in the shit", when they would have gladly given up wages for the rest of their life for the humble joy(?) of changing diapers.

There's also the corner-cases (as we call them in software) to think through: A 7-month miscarriage, for example, can they rejoin if they left at month 6?

I mean for the positive, there are enough voices calling for status quo or degeneration.

And what commitment do those who have no children (either by choice or otherwise) receive to compensate them?

Sorry, it raises a red flag w/ me whenever someone suggests the government get into the "promoting family" business. Seems like we should just be getting out of the war business in general.

By the way, my use of the word "fear" was purely rhetorical. It was a hedge. Now I see I should have been more forthright: If what you are proposing came to pass, beyond the clear Constitutional issues it raises, it ABSOLUTELY would be painted as a setback to the military that would land squarely on the shoulders of female recruits. All of them. Even those who, unlike the young woman featured in this article, had every intention of seeing through the commitment they signed up for.

As a side note, I find it ironic in light of this article that some of us who are actually trying to get INTO the military (i.e., DADT) are often denied rights due to our purported lack of procreative abilities...

I don't think most fellow soldiers would begrudge a child being parented. To argue that childless folks would is a nonstarter with me. I'll concede exceptions.

I agree, out of the war business in general. No standing private or public armies as well. No private armies whatsoever. No more subsidies and tax breaks to peddlers of death devices either.

Female recruits are already being discriminated against. I can hardly see how things would be different. There is more than one way to fulfill a commitment.

And what are you thinking about the "promoting family" argument. Have you read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?

Your comment wrt to DADT I agree with 100%. And I would add that if a same sex couple had a child and one parent died the same compassion should be extended.

Not least of which are the privacy and equal protection issues I alluded to earlier. And it wouldn't just be childless people who might object--married couples might also (rightfully) object if single parents were given preferential placement. Can parents whose spouses are still available "afford" to be in greater harm? (Can childless people?) What happens when single parents remarry? Do they lose the privilege of being assigned closer to home and out of harm's way? And on and on.

By the way, supposing you're right that most would support this preferential policy with a few exceptions, let me say this: it doesn't take a survey of the population to mount a legal challenge. It only takes one person to file a lawsuit. In a legal sense, it is often the exception that defines the rule.

And of course there are the logistical problems this would pose for the military. You'd have a system in which a certain pool of people would have to be allocated where they're not needed. There is indeed more than one way to fulfill a commitment, but it may not be worth it to the military to keep you on the payroll if you can opt out of the jobs they actually need you for. It's an efficient use of resources.

I really don't want you to get the wrong idea because in principle I agree with you - it is absolutely in the best interest of this girl and her child to be together. But as I've pointed out, the military is (necessarily) not in the business of facilitating that. And, as someone else on this thread pointed out, were there no one else available to care for her child this mother would likely qualify for a hardship discharge.

Of course, all of this is said with a volunteer (or ostensibly volunteer) military in mind. If the draft made a comeback, obviously there would be different considerations.

of America, average Americans and American families.

Weigh the pros and cons. There will always be reasons not to do something. The people who are arguing in support of the military's choice here don't seem to discuss values and principles with the exception of honoring a contract. Wonder why not?

I could care less about legal challenges. Let our broken justice system work that out. We have a responsibility to our government and our government a responsibility to us.

Can anyone create a solution that makes everyone happy.

"likely qualify" is the sticking point, devil in the details.

Single parents that remarry are not single parents. Don't needlessly confuse the responsibility, k.

you are absolutely right. The military can not be in the family raising business and if they ever start making special arrangements for single parent's, they are doomed.

There are too many exceptions and situations that would turn the rules on there head and turn the military inside out.

With the military being the type of organization it is, it is by necessity that they make a hard rule and have to maintain that rule at all costs due to necessity.

It's the way it has to be.

Legal child care disputes in the Army do have some precedent, as in the case of Lisa Pagan of North Carolina, who resolved a battle with the service last spring over being ordered to report for duty even though she said she had no one to care for her two young children. She received an honorable discharge.

About 3,000 soldiers have been discharged from the Army over the past two years after they couldn't deploy because of child care or pregnancy difficulties, according to the Army Times.

"Enjoy your bottle, sweetie, mommy has to go blow these bad guys' heads' off with a bazooka."

I enjoyed the imagery, but you happen to be wrong.

6–3. Criteria
Soldiers on active duty may be discharged or released (see para 6–10) because of genuine dependency or hardship.
a. Dependency. Dependency exists when death or disability of a member of a Soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family causes that member to rely upon the Soldier for principal care or support. (See para 6–5 for definition of Soldier’s “immediate family.”)
b. Hardship. Hardship exists when in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the Soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship. (See para 6–5 for definition of Soldier’s “immediate family.”)
(1) Parenthood of married Soldiers. A married Soldier who becomes a parent by birth, adoption, or marriage (stepparent) and whose child (or children) is less than 18 years of age and resides within the household, may apply for separation under hardship. The Soldier must submit evidence (see para 6–7b(5)) that the roles of parent and Soldier are incompatible and that the Soldier cannot fulfill his/her military obligation without neglecting the child or children.
(2) Sole parents. Soldiers who are sole parents and whose children are under 18 years of age and reside within the household, may apply for separation under hardship. A“sole parent” is defined as a parent who is single by reason of never having been married, or who is divorced or legally separated and has been awarded child custody by judicial decree or court order, or who is a widow/widower.
(3) Intent. It is not the intent of the Army’s policy regarding married Soldiers who are parents or Soldiers who become sole parents, to arbitrarily allow the separation of an enlisted woman who remained in the Service during her pregnancy and then requested release immediately after receiving the medical and monetary benefits related to prenatal and postnatal absence and delivery.
(4) Supporting evidence. Supporting evidence will be provided as per paragraph 6–7b(5). Paragraph 6–7b(5) minimizes the supporting evidence for these two policies. However, Soldiers must meet the application criteria in paragraph 6–4 in addition to the requirement that there be unexpected circumstances beyond the Soldier’s control
justifying separation. An example of unexpected circumstances beyond the Soldier’s control is the birth of a child with a serious birth defect requiring constant care. Inability to obtain an approved dependent care plan does not qualify the Soldier for separation under this provision.

when they're trying to convince high school kids to sign up.

:applause:

if this was a single guy with an infant, the same rule should/would apply.

having a kid is not a get out of your contract free card.

misogynistic, racist and simply cruel.

in any form at all.

Find me one freaking war in the second half of the 20th century the U.S. should have gotten involved in.

This woman "supported the military industrial complex" by enlisting. In return (and by her own admission) she gained a career.

One may disagree with how our military handles itself...or war in general...but that doesn't release this woman from the responsibilities she CHOSE to accept.

And you choose to argue that the MIC is a higher contract.

Whose side are you on anyway?

Something this woman is not exhibiting a sense of.

than a contract with the military that can be fulfilled in an alternative way.

Any that DOES exist is a direct result of the decisions this person made.

You didn't answer my question about there being more than one obligation and the choice to fulfill either would have been personal responsibility.

A grandparent is not a parent and don't try and tell me different, it is a fallback that was unwanted and there was a question of fitness as well.

Please help me understand how a progressive, I will assume you are for argument's sake, cannot see that there is a higher obligation of parent to child and that the military contract could be fulfilled alternatively?

This may be the same reason why so many Democrats support or passively consent to killing innocents and having stupid policies like DOMA and DADT. Rightwingers have already shown us the way to devalue children and some Dems line up with them.

How do you not see that this policy is one that comes from the conservative world view even if it has been adopted by many on the "left."

If you can't see fit to respond to those questions, could you tell me what a humanistic, progressive answer to this dilemma be?

Once you start dehumanizing people, it never stops and it always comes home.

Fact: She CHOSE to enlist in the military.

Fact: She CHOSE to get pregnant while in the military.

Fact: She CHOSE to carry the child to term.

Fact: She now wants to be released from her military obligations...in violation of her enlistment contract.


When one enlists in the military, one gives up certain rights. One of those ceded rights is the ability to just pick up and leave whenever one feels like it. CHOOSING actions that make complying with deployment orders difficult does not release one from their obligations...not legally, and (IMO) not ethically.

This is not a "conservative" view, it's a responsible view.


A purely "humanistic" solution is not called for in this matter. A balance of responsibility, the needs of the military, and the needs of the child must be weighed...in that order.


This woman CHOSE to join an organization that limited her choices. Personal responsibility and the danger of setting a precedent trump her reluctance to comply with deployment orders...especially when there is a family member taking care of the child.

1. Many find no alternative other than the military but I concede she chose to enlist.

2. Really, she chose to get pregnant? How do you know that? Maybe a condom broke or the pill didn't work. Already you are talking nonsense. She could have been raped.

3. She chose to carry the child to term. Now you are really going off the deep end. Some people would never consider an abortion for all sorts of reasons.

4. Do you know she was given the choice of alternately fulfilling her obligation? No you don't and I am fairly certain she was not. Having a child and being a single parent she is in a difficult position.

Then you go right ahead with more nonsense. This is not an issue of picking up and leaving whenever one feels like it. You are offensive in the extreme to say this.

And you can't answer my question because you seem incapable and shrug it off. Your order is in your own head.

Your opinion is grossly base, arrogant and inhumane rationalization. But hey, you present them well. I'll give you that.

1) We are speaking of this particular person. She CHOSE to enlist. Even people who have "no alternative" (and there are always alternatives) CHOOSE whether or not to enlist.

2) Unless you have evidence that she was raped, she CHOSE to get pregnant. It's a known fact that birth control measures occasionally fail. If you have sex, you're CHOOSING to run the risk of getting pregnant.

3) I wasn't making a values judgment. The fact is, she did CHOOSE to carry the child to term.

4) The military is not required to give her an opportunity to alternately fulfill her obligation. It's not the military's responsibility to change their staffing needs based on people's personal decisions. It's great when they're able to do it, but they're in no way obligated. Difficult or not, she created this situation, not the military.

As far as your "question", it's immaterial. Both are important responsibilities. The point is that this woman CHOSE to put herself into a position where she would have to choose between parenting and fulfilling her legal obligation to the military. My contention is that the military is not obligated to change its plans to cater to her choices.

I fully realize that this is not a touchy-feely view of the issue, but I don't believe it's either inaccurate or unreasonable.

Just compare them to the Army rules and see for yourself. I posted them elsewhere in the thread.

It saddens me that the military would have a more caring attitude than fellow DU'ers. I thought most of us would support the soldiers when they are doing their best to serve us.

What your opinion represents is a conservative world view. I am not saying you are a conservative. Go ahead and read what the Army says about these situations then you can come back and argue for a more conservative agenda, k.

Former Ann Arbor resident myself, hello there. Would you mind explaining your comment?

I signed an enlistment document, not a "contract."

Let's use the right terms please, because there's a specific legal reason it isn't a contract.

"CONTRACT: An agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits."

Enlisting in the military IS a legally binding decision (which is why you can't legally just walk away).

The whole idea of the sacrosanct contract is a conservative construction.

I would also add that the whole "you can't legally just walk away" simplification when applied to a situation that does not exist is also a rightwinger meme when used wrt soldiers. No one in this story wants to walk away from any responsibility.

Are you really so thick you cannot understand how much you sound like a conservative? I am not calling you a conservative. Lots of people of good heart and intention have been brainwashed.

Putting right or left wing spin on the concept of contract law is really silly.

I did have trouble finding statistics though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

And the reason is that it states right in the document (top of the flip side) that NOTHING in it is binding upon one of the two parties.

This idea that the government can change any aspect of the agreement at any time but a soldier who does so is morally corrupt (rather than just making the best decision for themselves and accepting the consequences) is exactly the same as bank CEOs trying to convince homeowners that they have some high moral calling to stay in a bad mortgage for the sake of corporate profits.

Some people have a problem with carrying out their obligations for the choices they knowingly made.

because of other family circumstances the grandmother could not look after the baby. Your logic smacks of typical "family values" and "pro-life" and you obviously have never been a mother. Well being of your child should always come first... even before blowing up another country.

A disgusting statement actually. Did you even read your post???

It surprises me how many fanatical rule followers we have here on D/U.

"arguing in favor of gang rapists"???


:wtf:

Sort of like explaining a Far Side cartoon to someone. If you have to explain it, they probably won't get it anyway.

It's really unfortunate though that young people enlist in the Army without fully thinking it out. They're either victims of the economy looking for jobs and/or they fall for all the BS: Thoughts of glory, defending the country, being a hero, etc... These are all noble ideas, but the reality is you will be in the Armed Services. You are a GI (government issue). You are no longer an individual, your independent thoughts are irrelevant, and if the Army wanted you to have a baby, they would've issued you one.

That being said, I spent nearly 7 years in the Army. I didn't go in for any thing valiant or with a sense of duty...I was just bored with college, generally a slacker and looking for something new. I don't regret it, I did things that I never would've done had I not enlisted and generally enjoyed myself...but in the back of my mind I had to keep reminding myself that if there was a war, I was cannon fodder. I accepted that fact, but it wasn't the most weighty thing on my young mind as I spent most of my time drinking and chasing women throughout the beautiful European landscape - a far cry from what young soldiers are stuck with today.

Are they going to lock up the grandmother, too?

:headbang:
rocktivity

she made. No one forced her into the contract.

That is very callous of you by the way.

"No one forced" is something my rightwinger brother uses often to explain much of his world view and I can tell you it is absolutely not in any way a humanistic or progressive one.

Interestingly, the military does have guidelines and her commanding officer appears to me not to have followed them. Everyone else(?), 3000 in the last couple years, was given compassion. Ever known a public official or military officer to break the rules? Do you want to come up with some rationalization to support deviant behaviors of officials who should be accountable to us? Or do you want to just harden your heart and tell her to tough it up?

I posted elsewhere in the thread from the rules for the army with regard to this. Interestingly the rules are only for the little people. Lucky for us nearly every other person in this situation has been treated humanely and according to regulation.

Too bad, if she had said she was a lesbian she could be out tomorrow. Funny, too, she doesn't even want out of the military.

Or else, why bother drawing them up, reading them and signing them? No callousness there. Our entire society depends on contracts, which is why there are penalties often written in them for breaking the contracts. And contracts are not just for little people, they're for corporations, government, etc.

I really don't care what your bro has to say.

Sounded like you were more offended by my using that. Telling it is, what we choose to defend.

Contract law, despite whatever it is you're trying to sell, is important to this country. That's why serious contract breaches usually end up in the courts and the wronged party gets big financial rewards, punitive damages, etc.

And I still don't care about what your brother has to say about things. :)

that would make sense.

:sarcasm:

of gender.

if he chooses to be there as a father. It has nothing to do with gender.

Every contract that tears down the middle class is breakable. Every other is sacrosanct.

Do you want a world where a single parent can stay with a child or is that something that should never be? I see a better America. Our enemies are here not half a world away.

He should also be supported just the same as a woman.

No baby with a caring parent wants to be away from that parent, whether there are 1 or 2 parents. The grandmother can provide just as nurturing of a home as the mother so there really isn't any reason to give her a privilege married women don't get.

If there is absolutely nobody to care for the child, then they would probably give the person a hardship discharge. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

Personally, I think people should just be able to quit any time they want to for no reason at all. But apparently the military doesn't think that would work for them, even though it works for all those private contractors.

By your argument, why not a foster parent or orphanage?

I don't think people should be able to quit an time they want or for no reason at all. You take an odd position for someone who professes to believe such an idea.

Where did I say anything like that in any shape or form.

Do you know the difference between facts as they are - and opinions of about what you think they should be.

The facts as they are - parenthood is not an excuse for not deploying.

My opinion is that troops should be able to quit whenever they want.

Two different things, fact and opinion.

"can provide just as nurturing of a home as the mother"

And so can foster homes and orphanages. Under the very best circumstances they can be nurturing homes as well.

Your arguments as presented are unpersuasive and support the military's position.

Parenthood is not an "EXCUSE". Single parent is a special situation and responsibility. Fulfilling a contract of service does not require being shipped overseas.

There exists the way things are and the way things should be. President Obama during the campaign showed the ability to distinguish the two and speak eloquently and powerfully about visions of the way things should be. The way things should is worth fighting for.

Either we are misunderstanding each other or one of us is being overly simple and obtuse.

Again, I ask, why do you defend the treatment of this single parent when you espouse the view that people should be able to break their military contract on a whim. I do not accept the simplistic explanation that you argue promoting "reality" but offer zero argument for your so-called opinion.

According to the first article I read..the grandmother couldnt take the baby and there was no one the mother knew that could take the baby.
You cant just give an infant to strangers and leave the country.

Contrast this story with this one
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34483943/ns/us_news-military/

Then his walk back after he received a deserved backlash
http://blogs.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/general-we-missed-opportunity-pregnancy-ban

It's all about protecting the rights of women soldiers after he was shamed.

Seems like people here are poisoned with the same anti-human ideas.

I agree and foster care is not an option. I do think it is odd that the grandmother backed out at the last minute and that maybe they thought they were winning their point.

Why and what do you mean?

...are often allowed special consideration.

So given the right circumstances you would be wrong.

IIRC an earlier report on this case had the army arguing her pregnancy was a deliberate attempt to avoid deployment to a warzone as some women on ships in GW1 were reputed to have done.

Presuming this could be proven, I'd accept the army giving her an immediate no fault discharge with loss of accrued benefits, but not the stockade. Without proof, deploy her stateside.

Although I'm sure there are situations where a parent has absolutely no support and really is the only person available. As I said above, that isn't the case here and isn't the normal case for parents in the military. Maybe it should be different, but it isn't so there's no real reason to feel bad for this woman at all. Her child is with the grandmother, she needs to fulfill her obligations.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Anyone who is a good parent, who understands what parenting is really about, who understands the need children have for their parent - not grandma, not uncle, not cousin - understands why even the most dedicated soldiers can have a child and realize they cannot leave the child.

The uber patriots clammer about "contract," without accepting that the government has great latitude in its actions, and it chooses to act against individuals who seek to remain with their children. It chooses not to act against generals who lie about everything from Jessica Lynch to Pat Tillman. It chooses not to find the trillions in Pentagon money stolen by defense contractors.

In short, the weasels who run the Army don't have the balls to take on the corrupt generals at the top, but they'll beat up on a young mother. And that goes for their cowardly fanboys, too.

and had to stop loss everyone, she would have gotten a discharge. And that is the way it should be. They seem to want to make an example of her. She is not at fault as much as the army has a failed policy.

First, when you enlist you do so much active duty and so much time in the Inactive Reserve. In the IR, you are not paid, you do not drill, you have no benefits, but they can make you Active any time they want. And if you are in even the IR they can stop loss your discharge from the IR or Army. It amounts to a contract that you can never get out of-a deal with the devil.

I was in the last year of 10 years of Army Reserve service. Six years of Active Reserve 4 years of Inactive. I loved my unit but had grown to disagree philosophically with the Army. I had gotten on with my life and surprise surprise I was pregnant with my daughter. My daughter was 4months old when Saddam Hussein over ran Kuwait. They were calling up and stop lossing folks left and right. My 'contract ' for the IR was ending and I received a letter to report for my physical.I opted not to go for fear that if I reported, I would be yanked in. Frankly I felt I had done my duty for my country and at this point my duty was to my newborn daughter. I just let that contract lapse a natural death. We I see guys on their 6-8th tour of duty-I realize I did the right thing. The army and the current system of recruiting is a total scam and the troops are being short change. I hope common sense prevails and she just gets a discharge but frankly, they are more interested in an example.

If she enlisted for the typicial 4+4 years her normal discharge date would be in 2011.

She can cook stateside.

or she can face court martial for refusal to deploy, as she is.

Procreation does not and should not gain one special treatment in the Army.

hard one for the military?

Legal child care disputes in the Army do have some precedent, as in the case of Lisa Pagan of North Carolina, who resolved a battle with the service last spring over being ordered to report for duty even though she said she had no one to care for her two young children. She received an honorable discharge.

About 3,000 soldiers have been discharged from the Army over the past two years after they couldn't deploy because of child care or pregnancy difficulties, according to the Army Times.

We could all get sterilized so no one will
have those messy, time-consuming, schedule
busting "special treatment" issues, but then
there would be nothing and no one to fight
for or against, would there.

People are not machines. If a soldier
has a heart attack, they are not sent
back until they are healthy.

Shit happens and so does human sexual reproduction
and offspring. We are human, so we work around it.

The soldier should be discharged so she
can care for her baby.

On face value this sounds ridiculous. But a lot of us with full-time jobs work from home. Why can't this mother fulfill her obligation while shuffling military papers from a home office?

and anyone with ANY time in the military knows the Army is not known for common sense, That or a discharge.

the soldier who is facing his third deployment and whose wife and kids are stressed to the max. And another job for the single woman whose mom just had a stroke and needs help. And two more for the soldiers who just married each other and need to spend some time together.

and the day that the military allows ALL of its service people to choose whether or not to deploy I will agree that she should have this option. Until then, she has no more legitimate reason to refuse her assignment than any other military member.

The circumstances in the specific example cited in the article - Lisa Pagan - were completely different. Pagan had received an honorable discharge then was recalled four years (and two children) later. The references I found said that bringing charges was rare, but not unheard of, and I suspect we will be seeing the military push this harder now that we have expanded our presence in Afghanistan.

Hard to believe, I know.

6–3. Criteria
Soldiers on active duty may be discharged or released (see para 6–10) because of genuine dependency or hardship.
a. Dependency. Dependency exists when death or disability of a member of a Soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family causes that member to rely upon the Soldier for principal care or support. (See para 6–5 for definition of Soldier’s “immediate family.”)
b. Hardship. Hardship exists when in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the Soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship. (See para 6–5 for definition of Soldier’s “immediate family.”)
(1) Parenthood of married Soldiers. A married Soldier who becomes a parent by birth, adoption, or marriage (stepparent) and whose child (or children) is less than 18 years of age and resides within the household, may apply for separation under hardship. The Soldier must submit evidence (see para 6–7b(5)) that the roles of parent and Soldier are incompatible and that the Soldier cannot fulfill his/her military obligation without neglecting the child or children.
(2) Sole parents. Soldiers who are sole parents and whose children are under 18 years of age and reside within the household, may apply for separation under hardship. A“sole parent” is defined as a parent who is single by reason of never having been married, or who is divorced or legally separated and has been awarded child custody by judicial decree or court order, or who is a widow/widower.
(3) Intent. It is not the intent of the Army’s policy regarding married Soldiers who are parents or Soldiers who become sole parents, to arbitrarily allow the separation of an enlisted woman who remained in the Service during her pregnancy and then requested release immediately after receiving the medical and monetary benefits related to prenatal and postnatal absence and delivery.
(4) Supporting evidence. Supporting evidence will be provided as per paragraph 6–7b(5). Paragraph 6–7b(5) minimizes the supporting evidence for these two policies. However, Soldiers must meet the application criteria in paragraph 6–4 in addition to the requirement that there be unexpected circumstances beyond the Soldier’s control
justifying separation. An example of unexpected circumstances beyond the Soldier’s control is the birth of a child with a serious birth defect requiring constant care. Inability to obtain an approved dependent care plan does not qualify the Soldier for separation under this provision.

A mother shouldn't be incarcerated for refusing to leave her infant. It's basic human decency.

:)

Nobody ever talks about him.

Of course he knocked up someone with no consequences for himself. If he is in the Army too, there can and should be huge consequences for him.

In any case he is a deadbeat asshole for deserting someone he knocked up and allowing this to happen. But of course guys do this shit all the time, no news here.

And force the father to care for the child? Is being a single mother some sort of abomination?

Our military can't defeat two small countries with 50 million citizens between them - mostly peasants - and neither one having an Army, a Navy, or an Air Force. Seven years in Iraq. Eight years in Afghanistan. And for what?

Criminals run the Pentagon, and have for years, but let a young soldier with a baby say "no" to deployment, and all the militarists and their fanboys come out in force, proudly beating their chests and acting like a bunch of uncivilized simians.

When I was in the military and got pregnant (bad Birth Control Pills!) I had a choice of whether to stay in or take a discharge. they give you that choice before you have the baby. she knew what she was in for. This was not a surprise I am sure. I do feel sorry for her, but this is what she signed up for.

Legal child care disputes in the Army do have some precedent, as in the case of Lisa Pagan of North Carolina, who resolved a battle with the service last spring over being ordered to report for duty even though she said she had no one to care for her two young children. She received an honorable discharge.

About 3,000 soldiers have been discharged from the Army over the past two years after they couldn't deploy because of child care or pregnancy difficulties, according to the Army Times.

Thanks for giving me my scare of the day. Don't know if I'll be able to sleep tonight.

this is the kind of behavior that makes it harder for women to achieve....

"see, women will just get pregnant and then want to quit"

This is an honest question.

I'm not feeding right wing memes into the discussion.

Are you aware of the idea of framing, maybe read any George Lakoff?

framing in conservative and progressive ways, but I plan to read his books again now that I have more awareness so I can put his insight into practice. His work is based upon real brain science. The idea of framing is that to even repeat conservative world view type messages puts the mind into a conservative way of thinking. The conservatives have essentially enslaved our minds and we don't even know it. The frames and world view is reinforcing. There is a whole lot more to Lakoff's work and that is a poor introduction that hardly does his work justice.

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/803/1/

There is also an mp3 interview to listen to her tell her own story.

http://www.kalwnews.org/audio/single-army-mom-forced-give-her-baby

She is one of the soldiers so many profess to support, never had a discipline problem before and wants to be a soldier. You can support this soldier by contacting your Congress person.

How did this thread get so many fire-farting assholes worked up? Oh I know, they've all got 'Hunt for Red October' on the brain and realize that the cook is the most vital member of any unit. :silly:

.
.
.

'nuff said

During WW2, my father(having 2 children at the time) was assigned a position locally as a Navigational Flight instructor - NOT required for overseas duty BECAUSE he had a family.

I'm SURE there is something that this person could do to fulfill obligations to the military on the Continent - no?

This sort of behavior by the military will NOT encourage enlistment

"stop-loss" may in effect "stop enlistment" - voluntarily anyways

The military doesn't just hand a woman deployment orders, and then immediately charge her when she says she can't go. I've witnessed this issue first-hand at the base I'm at here. All single-parent personnel are REQUIRED to develop a plan of how to care for their child in case they are deployed, and this plan is submitted to their commander for review.

In the case I'm familiar with, the parent failed to provide this plan after being told to do so on SEVERAL occasions. She was given a number of chances to provide the information or make a decision and separate from the military, and she didn't...so she was given an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment). Following that it was clear...fill out the damn plan or you will be administratively separated, so she finally did submit a plan.

When it came time to deploy, instead of follow the plan (have her sister in Houston watch her daughter), she decided to go the cheap way and dump her daughter off on my wife, because she said she didn't feel like driving to Houston. She also dropped her daughter off at our nearly a full MONTH prior to deploying, stating she needed "time" to prepare and do her outprocessing. I had recently been deployed to Iraq (and was actually in Iraq as this happened) and I know it doesn't take a month to outprocess...it takes about 3-4 days, and you can do it all within normal work hours. My wife was naive, though, and wanted to help her friend. About a week into it, she discovered this young lady was out partying and spending the night with her boyfriend, instead of being busy "outprocessing".

She had also neglected to leave behind any legal documentation (ie, powers of attorney allowing my wife to make medical decisions, and without making any arrangements for school), nor any way to provide us with money to care for her daughter. She just thought we'd do it all for free. My wife told her she needed to make arrangements to pay for her daughters school lunches, and provide a little extra money for extra groceries, and she refused, stating she'd just repay us when we got back.

To make it worse, this woman was in the Air National Guard, and worked for the state government here. Her civilian government job was going to continue paying her salary while she was deployed...essentially she was going to double-dip and do it tax free to boot, and she complained about us being "cheap". In the end, I at least wanted to make sure my wife got the legal documentation prior to her leaving, and she still refused to do it...she was too busy partying all the time.

I emailed her directly after my wife kept getting used and abused, and told her if she didn't provide the necessary legal documents and if she didn't make the necessary other arrangements for her daughter (like sign her up for school in the new school district, etc), that I would be forced to talk to her commander. She responded that I was an asshole, it was none of my business since I was deployed anyways, and that I needed to keep my nose out of "their" (ie, hers and my wife's) business. Keep in mind this is a staff sergeant responding to a captain. At the end of her response she said I wasn't authorized to talk to her commander anyways.

I guess that threat was enough, and the next day she picked up her daughter and took her to her dad's house. He had wanted to care for her in the first place but she refused to allow him to watch her. He is actually a very nice guy and was remarried to someone with a young son...the only reason she didn't want him watching his own daughter was out of spite, plus she thought she could use my wife since they had been old-time high school friends.

She and my wife didn't talk for a long time, and in the end her ex-husband complained about the same things we complained about, and she wound up getting yet ANOTHER Article 15 punishment, and during her final physical prior to deploying she was barred from going because she had contracted a venereal disease from her boyfriend. She sent my wife a very nasty email stating that it was my fault she couldn't deploy (she would stand to make a lot of money, with her civilian job and Guard job both paying her in a tax-free zone).

I don't know all the details about this particular case above, but for the most part the military does try very hard to accommodate families....and in the end, however, it can only do so much. If this girl was given multiple chances to make arrangements and didn't, or said she had made arrangements but didn't, or some other combination of factors, she could rightly face punishment. In every case I've witnessed the military gives single parents many opportunities to stack things in their favor. We had a female Master Sergeant who was a single mom, and she had a care plan, and got deployed and it all worked out ok. Her son stayed with family. Those that state they have no way to care for their kids are usually administratively separated for being incompatible with military service.

The one described in the story could in no way be described as a responsible mother.

could be described as irresponsible especially if you're a soldier.

It is not something I would choose to do, label people in that situation that way. To do so would expose one's arrogance and lack of compassion or imagination.

Oh, but perfect people or those who think they are superior lifeforms might do the same.

Are we really going to defend their POV or did you have a different point?

I don't know for sure, but it's very possible this Army soldier could also be similarly negligent. The military tends to give people a number of chances before charging them with a courts martial or even NJP. Typically the individual will be given verbal counseling (ie, "you need to fix this situation or you could face administrative discipline"). Next if no action has been taken (or not enough action) they will give her a letter of counseling, which is the first step in documenting undesirable actions (or lack of action). Upon letting it go further, they will then give her a letter of reprimand or letter of admonition (generally LOAs are reserved for officers). If she still doesn't do what she needs to do, they will take it to NJP (non-judicial punishment), or push it up for an Article 32 review (basically a grand jury) where those present at the Article 32 hearing will decide if the charges, actions and other evidence warrant actually going to court.

It's not a simple matter of handing this woman deployment orders, and the next day when she says she can't go they decide to try her in court. If that happened it wouldn't stand legally. Like I said, there's generally WAY more to this than meets the eye in a simple news article, typically written to generate some kind of emotional response to increase readership.

The group defending her was interviewed on Tom Hartmann's radio show during the first 15 minutes of the third hour, could have gone a lil longer can't say for certain, can't remember.

The group that is defending her also posts her story and there is an interview with her available in audio.

Employers, even our government, sometimes step beyond the bounds of legality, procedure, and decency. This appears to me to be one of those times.

I appreciated your take but this is not the woman in your story.

If she gets a good defense attorney she can defeat these charges provided that the Army failed to properly document the issue and/or failed to give her adequate opportunities to arrange something for her child.

That being said, according to the law, it is her responsibility to find adequate care for her child. In most cases I've seen the military will do what it can to assist, and MOST of the times (my disclaimer for this particular case) they only go after those who are negligent, not those who are actually really trying or who are stuck in a pickle.

But there have been times on occasion where military leadership get to far ahead of themselves. If that's the case, as I said, she should have a good chance of defeating these charges.

How dare anyone be ordered to leave their own children behind.

Give her a non-combat job at a base with child care facilities.

:headbang:
rocktivity

Also make her pay back whatever bonus+training has been spent on her.

were not dishonorably discharged.

What kind of America are you fighting for?

She got a very nice chunk of change as well as free living expenses. Its a great scam if you can pull it off. 10-30K and no commitment.

I generally think either they are well intentioned people that are stuck in a conservative world view or they are necessarily conservative. I am not saying you are by the way. Talking to people who have this image of the world is like talking past them or over their heads. I am not saying you are less than brilliant. When I speak with conservatives on the street, doorbelling, phone banking, in the grocery store, what have you I generally try and start with finding common ground. That is the way I prefer it, but I have often started great face to face conversations with both sides tempers flaring. A story I can share is with a Father and teenage son who were talking very loudly about just nuking Iran. I jumped in their faces and told them how cruel and stupid they were. We ended up talking for about an hour at the grocery store about hardcore politics from both sides and ended the conversation on very cordial terms. The father kept asking why the news would say this or that if it wasn't true and I know I effected his thinking if only temporarily. He asked me about sources and at the end of the conversation even repeated them and told me he intended to look them up and in no way indicated that he was skeptical just open. I realize that hearing more and more rightwing ideas those would just be reinforced but I still introduced him to ideas he had never heard. This is why finding common ground can be so effective. On DU I expect that people share a progressive world view, problem is a lot of really well intentioned folks who come here cling to what the were taught and what the media and others have reinforced. I have very little patience for such nonsense. The problem is that we are just talking past each other. I clearly explained why you are propagating a lie yet you continue and act oblivious. I honestly think you must be a well intentioned person and I really can see your views, the problem seems to be that you can't see mine. It's as if I need to hang a sign around your lie and explain every reason I think it is.

Anyone can join and leave whenever they want. Best friend dies, divorce, or if you just don't like it. How can our government force people to stay in the military.

I believe every person has power to change our world, even if it is only potential.

I'd sure like to hear more about that angle of the story.

sickening

That is obviously not what the poster was saying.

The person was asking where the father is in all this. It's a legitimate question.

And the question is irrelevant anyway. If it shut down the argument then I must have made a point with you. The story says she does not have a relationship with the father. She or you need to know more? What is this a tabloid story to you?

with the other parent and they can go home with the cash? Sweet!

Unfortunately all a gay or lesbian needs to do to have his or her career ruined is tell the truth.

Go home with the cash is such nonsense and perpetuating a lie, but why would that stop you, huh?

father or mother who says the spouse won't take care of the child. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card?

"Sorry, Sarge, wife says she won't take care of the kids anymore."

This isn't monopoly nor is the military a jail.

I do appreciate the attempt at humor though.

so it's kind of like jail. Why do you discriminate against divorced mothers and fathers whose ex-spouse refuses to take care of the kids?

She had made arrangements that her mom would care for the toddler when she was deployed, but the mom was also the legal caretaker of a disabled adult family memeber and at the last minute - a week or so before deployment, decided that she couldn't take care of the boy and the other person and told her she had to take her child back.
The Army wouldn't allow for an extended month's leave of absence to find another caretaker for the child and apparently told her to put the kid up in a foster home or something and ship out with the rest of the unit. The father and father's family is apparently out of the picture.

What isn't fair is that she did have arrangements that fell through. Because if her mother had died just before she deployed, in most units, she would have most likely been granted emergancy hardship leave to care for the effects and find another caretaker as single parents before her had. But since 1) her mother couldn't care for the child at the last minute and 2) as there is really no standard rule concerning hardship leave issues dealing with guardianship, her C.O. decided to play hard-ass and wouldn't let her stay behind the few weeks it took her to find a family member to agree to act as guardian for her child. She had already been through the deployment training, the few weeks wouldn't hurt her unit that badly, and would have ensured that her head would have been on her job rather than at home the entire time she would have been in Afghanistan and needed to be focused on her training to ensure her survival.

Now that guardian has to take care of the child while mom is in the Brig.

There really does need to be some sort of rule that allows fair adjudication and granting of emergancy hardship leave; I've witnessed two serious emergancy leave situations where very young children had been left alone for over a week while "dad was at sea and mom decided she had enough and took off with a boyfriend"; one C.O. sent the guy home as soon as they pulled into port to take care of the situation with orders to fly back as soon as the kids were taken care of. The other C.O. refused leave and both told the sailor and the county that his decision was unless the mother returned or a grandparent showed up to claim the kids, they were to go into foster care until the ship returned four months later and the sailor could try to retrieve them then.
This was in Florida. Three kids. He was only got two back - a year later. The infant ended up lost in the shuffle, apparently adopted out before he got back. You can't sue the Navy, even if something like this is the result.

Again, there really has to be standard rules.

Haele

:applause:

I was stationed aboard a ship that had several people unable to get underway at various times due to pregnancy or child issues. It leaves that person's department on the ship a person short for the regular workday and watch schedule so it affects everyone else at the unit in a negative way. The military has to stick to the rules or else it will encourage more irresponsible behavior.

that proves the rule that the military respects the soldier and has clear guidelines. Ironic that at least one fellow DU'er suggested I am against the military when I am absolutely not. Something like 99.97% of 3000 recent cases cited in the story were treated humanely. My admiration has only grown.

By the way, know what else kills morale, fighting illegal wars. What about backdoor draft, insufficient rest between deployments, stop loss, poor equipment, insufficient support to do the job? Any of those sound like they might hurt morale, orders of magnitude beyond what you described. To be honest, the politicians don't seem to be all that concerned about morale. If your and your fellow soldiers' morale is harmed by having to take an extra shift or seeing a fellow soldier pregnant, then honestly you shouldn't be in the military IMO. I know that sounds harsh. Should try working in the private sector. Morale is not so much a concern then and often. Hey, why not join the private armies where a fellow female worker can be kidnapped and imprisoned after being gang raped by her fellow employees. Did you see the fight over protecting those women? Senator Franken led the charge to put a stop to that sort of thing but I doubt it will end, they will just make sure they kill the women like has been done before.

You either stand with the military guidelines or you don't is the way I see it. When a commander chooses to ignore guidelines the CIC and public should come down hard on them.

Just curious did you see the story about the general in northern Iraq who had to backpedal his idea of court marshaling anyone who gets pregnant or gets someone pregnant? Would be nice if the same outrage over protecting a fetus were applied to the treatment of the lives of this soldier mother and child.

Are people in the military really not fighting for the American family? If so, then tell me now. Would like to know the extent to which conservatives have poisoned the ranks.

When she had the child she had a backup to care for her child just like many other people did. However, when others are allowed to separate from the military, it' almost always because something happened to their childcare provider - wife dies, husband dies, wife gets cancer, husband becomes disabled, etc. In this case, I believe the army is looking at her previous arrangement and believing that she never intended to honor it. Her mother had the same responsibilities when she agreed to care for her child as she does now. Couldn't this mother see that?

I have two nephews getting ready to deploy and they are leaving behind wives and children who love them, and if my oldest nephew was having to deploy AGAIN because someone wasn't living up to his or her obligation I can assure you I'd be very pissed. He shouldn't have to deploy for anyone's irresponsibility, and his kids love him just as much as this woman's child.

And your nephews' children have mothers. A grandmother is NOT a mother or father. If the child only has one parent, you don't send that parent away. Sincerely, can you not see that? I could care less whether she had a plan that fell through or the reason it did so. The fact remains she is a single parent and America is better than what you are excusing. The people that seem to argue against compassion and understanding on this thread seem to focus on the idea that her intentions are somehow suspicious, she just wants to walk away from obligation, etc. That is a very conservative world view where the frame is the "bad" individual who must be made example of.

Are we a compassionate people or are we a bunch of hardass you're on your own types? Because you sound like this mother and child are on their own.

I would also say our parties have failed us by not obligating every citizen be required to serve in the military or some other public service. Americans are failing what I see as an obligation, national public service. Your fellow Americans are not living up to their obligations and I believe it is time for a mandate of that sort.

As soon as a woman gets pregnant, she should be forced to resign. The military does not exist to provide jobs when it's convenient.

And if you believe that we shouldn't be sending single parents away from their children, then surely you understand they shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

Carry through with your logic.

Also if history of the way we treat single parents were different I would be inclined as well.