THE RELIGIOUS CONSULTATION
on population, reproductive health & ethics


Send this page to a friend! (click here)

Bradenton Herald (USA), August 13, 2004

Groups debate results of military abortion ban

One of President Clinton's first acts after taking office in 1993 was to lift a ban on abortions at U.S. military hospitals, giving servicewomen access to a procedure that had been available to civilians for 20 years.

Two years later, the new Republican-controlled Congress reinstituted the ban, which remains in effect today as scores of soldiers become pregnant on the battlefield.

Now, with lengthy deployments in a military that is 15 percent female and with revelations of sexual assault in the armed forces, critics say it's time for a change.

The exceptions to the abortion ban - first instituted by President Reagan in 1988 - are those to save a woman's life or to end pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Four such procedures were performed at military facilities in the 2003 fiscal year ending last September, according to the Department of Defense.

Even in cases of rape and incest, military health insurance doesn't cover the procedure, which costs from $325 to $650 in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Planned Parenthood Federation.

Legislators have tried several times to amend the law, most recently in May, when Congress rejected a proposal to permit military facilities to provide abortions on request to patients willing to pay.

Abortion-rights activists vow to try again. But in the meantime, they say pregnant soldiers in countries where private clinics don't offer abortions, such as the Middle East and Afghanistan, are caught in a bind.

The military, and many service members themselves, offer many counterarguments, one that says with restrictions on sexual relations in combat zones and with birth control available, deployed soldiers should not get pregnant.

But it's clear that birth control and no-sex rules aren't working.

In Iraq and Kuwait alone, the Army said 163 of its soldiers had become pregnant as of June 17. It did not have numbers for Afghanistan or other areas of deployment.

A 1999 study of Army pregnancies and their impact on military readiness said, on average, from 5 percent to 6 percent of Army women were pregnant at any given time.

The Air Force and Marines said they do not track pregnancies. The Navy did not respond to requests for the information.

Defense Department spokesman James Turner said the military is bound by federal law to uphold the abortion ban, and that it is not in the business of providing what it considers elective procedures such as abortions.

That doesn't stop the military from offering service members vasectomies and cosmetic surgery, including liposuction, breast implants and nose jobs.

In the case of cosmetic surgery, at least, that's because such operations are not necessarily elective, Turner said. Rather, they are aimed at keeping military surgeons up to date in reconstructive surgery, a crucial element in treating combat wounds.

Abortions offer no such payoff, said retired Army Sgt. Pauline F. Keehn, who writes on issues affecting military women and helps run Militarywoman.org, a Web site dedicated to the topic.

Keehn supports abortion rights, but not in the armed forces. She joined the Army in 1971, when abortions were permitted at military hospitals. At first, she supported the idea.

"But as I saw the complications it caused . . . I was glad to see the restrictions placed on abortions," she said, noting such things as the need for additional OB-GYNs, not generally a high priority in the field.

"There are enough problems already surrounding the issue of pregnancy and its effect on deployment. Add the equation of those who choose abortion, and you have a logistical nightmare waiting to happen."

<< The Bradenton Herald -- 8/13/04 >>

Send this page to a friend! (click here)

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.