They don't understand what? That it's a "pipe dream" to think that some of these men should be able to control themselves, making it the woman's fault for even being in the military?

The statistics of sexual abuse in the military is starting to sound like the NBA...over powering and abusing women has gone on for thousands of years and I doubt it will ever stop. As a woman and the mother of sons, I find it very disturbing in ways I can't even put into words.

The mentality I'm seeing here is a factor in it. We, as a society have come to accept this sort of behavior due in part to the rare cases where women have been dishonest about being raped. I know young men in prison for statutory because she changed her mind...this isn't fair either. When Clinton got away with his Monica episode in the oval office it sent a loud message to young men all over the country.

Men displaying self control is a pipe dream....dang!!! Boys will be boys. HUH!! Women in the middle east wear a burka to hide their entire body so the men don't get too excited...and if he does, it's her fault. Ridiculous!!!

I take a pro choice stand on this....however I don't feel the government should pay for abortions. The morning after pill is easily available these days and these women can get it as easily as anyone else, should be available to anyone through their insurance. Government employees have better insurance than most. My heart goes out to these women having to prove they are the victim...this is why women don't talk about it.

War is hell, nothing good ever comes from it. Here is yet another reason to stop the madness.

My heart goes out to these women having to prove they are the victim...this is why women don't talk about it.

Yup, a lot of people don't understand the difference if they never served.

I remember being shocked when I took my oath to defend my flurry. There is one line where you say something like - I understand I can be executed for dereliction of duty.

You say on your oath that you give permission for your chain of command to kill you.



This may sound cold. But there was a reason they didn't let women in the military earlier. I believe this just shows why it isn't a good idea.

Anyone that argues that the men should just keep it in their pants is of course correct on these situations. However, pragmatically - that is a pipe dream.

Yup, a lot of people don't understand the difference if they never served.

I remember being shocked when I took my oath to defend my flurry. There is one line where you say something like - I understand I can be executed for dereliction of duty.

You say on your oath that you give permission for your chain of command to kill you.



This may sound cold. But there was a reason they didn't let women in the military earlier. I believe this just shows why it isn't a good idea.

Anyone that argues that the men should just keep it in their pants is of course correct on these situations. However, pragmatically - that is a pipe dream.

Yup, a lot of people don't understand the difference if they never served.

I remember being shocked when I took my oath to defend my flurry. There is one line where you say something like - I understand I can be executed for dereliction of duty.

You say on your oath that you give permission for your chain of command to kill you.



This may sound cold. But there was a reason they didn't let women in the military earlier. I believe this just shows why it isn't a good idea.

Anyone that argues that the men should just keep it in their pants is of course correct on these situations. However, pragmatically - that is a pipe dream.

This post of yours.....disturbing.
2 times now you are saying that if 'we' haven't been in the military we just don't understand....
understand what? Rape is rape regardless of who has been in the military. I already asked..what does being trained to fight have to do with rape..

and i have been wrong before, probably will be again

Obviously neither of you have been in the military.

Defending the Rights of the Women Who Defend Us

Today, Reps. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), Robert D. Andrews (D-N.J.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) stood up for U.S. servicewomen, and submitted an amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would end the unconscionable policy of denying rape survivors serving in the military health coverage for abortion care. The all-powerful House of Representatives Committee on Rules will decide this week whether this amendment — protecting the health and rights of U.S. servicewomen — deserves to get a vote.

Sexual assault in the armed services is at crisis levels. Tragically, we see story after story of servicewomen being attacked by their own colleagues. In the fiscal year 2010, according to the Department of Defense, 3,158 military sexual assaults were reported, many of which were reports of rape. As DOD officials have stated, even “one sexual assault is one too many,” but the above number — which is in the thousands — barely scratches the surface. Most servicewomen who have experienced sexual violence do not report the incident. Researchers estimate that up to one-third of women experience an attempted or completed rape during their military service.

In the face of this epidemic, federal law denies servicewomen and military families coverage for abortion care, even in cases of rape or incest. By contrast, the federal bans on abortion coverage for women enrolled in Medicaid, disabled women enrolled in Medicare, federal employees (other than members of the armed services), women who receive health care through the Indian Health Service, and women in federal prisons, all include exceptions for rape survivors. (The only other coverage restriction that doesn’t include a rape exception is the ban on abortion coverage for another group of women serving our country — those in the Peace Corps.) Even extreme and unprecedented anti-choice bills pending in Congress include exceptions for rape and incest.

Every woman should have the health care coverage she needs, regardless of how she pays for it. At the very least our military women deserve the same access to care as all of the other women who get their health insurance through the federal government.

As Undersecretary of Defense Clifford Stanley stated, “the American public should rightfully expect that when their...daughters raise their right hand to serve our great nation, they do so in a culture and environment where dignity, respect and protection prevail.”

U.S. servicewomen put their lives on the line for us every day. We owe it to them to fight for their dignity and respect their choices. Thank you Reps. Davis, Andrews, DeGette, Maloney, Sanchez and Slaughter for acting to correct this injustice.

Tell your representatives that this important issue deserves a vote — it’s time to defend the rights of the women who defend us.


http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/defending-rights-women-who-defend-us


I believe this is missing the major point.

It is the fact the women are being raped on the job that is the problem here. What kind of men are we allowing in our military anyway? We can identify precursors to rape in men. They are hostile towards women, they are highly judgmental of women believing most to be slut/whores or capable of slut/whore actions, they get off on frightening women, etc... So why can't we weed them out?

Most insurances do not cover abortion so why should the federal insurances be any different? If a woman works in a bakery and gets raped, if she doesn't get the "morning after pill" then she will have to go and pay for the abortion like everyone else does. But again the issue here is that she got raped on the job by a coworker and that it has happened here before, like the military issue.

I do support the women who serve this country but I don't know that I am in agreement with this.

Anyone have an opinion?