# Military question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 22, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524 "2005-04-22T00:55:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![leenmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f1d935/32.png) [@leenmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leenmi)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/21 "2005-04-22T16:49:00Z")
Women, single or married, are not punished for getting pregnant. Usually, they are given the choice of staying in or leaving the service. Unexpected pregnancies can be an annoying manning issue, but only in a selfish respect. Just like in the civilian world, it seems like one gets pregnant and a few more are sure to follow. This can mean supervisors and commanders have to schedule around manning slots that are on limited duty and can’t be filled by alternates. It’s a management issue, though. Usually, no one says anything but there can be grumbling when a pregnant woman chooses to separate from service. It’s stupid., though. It’s right up there with welfare mothers having more childrent to get a few more dollars. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/22 "2005-04-22T16:59:34Z")
> [@leenmi](#): > > Women, single or married, are not punished for getting pregnant. Usually, they are given the choice of staying in or leaving the service. The issue posed orgininally was never “getting pregnant.” It was getting pregnant for the purpose of avoiding duty in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/23 "2005-04-22T18:05:40Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > The issue posed orgininally was never “getting pregnant.” It was getting pregnant for the purpose of avoiding duty in Iraq. So if a women does get pregnant (accidently), but decides she doesn’t want the baby does the military provide the abortion? ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/24 "2005-04-22T18:33:39Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > So if a women does get pregnant (accidently), but decides she doesn’t want the baby does the military provide the abortion? No. The military does not pay for abortions within the continental U.S. From [the ACLU](http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=9039&c=146): > [@the ACLU](#): > > Who else is affected by the funding bans? > > By the early 1980s, Congress had passed restrictions similar to the Hyde Amendment affecting programs on which an estimated twenty million women rely for their health care or insurance. In addition to poor women on Medicaid, those denied access to federally funded abortion include Native Americans, federal employees and their dependents, Peace Corps volunteers, low-income residents of Washington, DC, federal prisoners, **military personnel and their dependents** , and disabled women who rely on Medicare. > > New health initiatives are likewise being burdened by the legacy of the Hyde Amendment. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a program providing expanded health insurance for children aged 19 or younger, includes a ban on the use of federal funds for abortions unless the pregnancy endangers the teenager’s life or results from rape or incest. (emphasis mine) Military women are not prohibited from getting abortions, should they so desire, but they have to pay for them out of their own pocket. That said, the military (at least in my experience; this may have changed, but I doubt it) encourages its personnel of both genders to use contraception, and makes most forms available at no cost, so barring personal objections for contraception, there is no excuse to get pregnant “accidentally”. Robin ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/25 "2005-04-22T19:43:17Z")
So women at overseas military bases (and Alaska & Hawai’i?) don’t need to pay out of pocket? ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/26 "2005-04-22T20:58:27Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > So women at overseas military bases (and Alaska & Hawai’i?) don’t need to pay out of pocket? Depends. If there is a language barrier, or if local health care is dangerous (or not up to American standards), a woman can have one through an American facility. However, this isn’t an absolute, on-demand right. Also, AFAIK, this does not apply to women in Alaska or Hawaii, who are financially responsible for their abortions. Robin ---
**Author:** ![cher3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cher3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cher3)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/27 "2005-04-22T21:27:17Z")
When I was interviewing some Marines for some work-related research, they said it was not uncommon for recruits to intentionally fail the drug test after their post-bootcamp leave in order to get a discharge. It wouldn’t be honorable, of course, but they didn’t care because they weren’t really invested in the military at that point. Probably it could come back to bite you seriously later on in life, but we’re not talking about the most farsighted group of people. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/28 "2005-04-22T22:54:59Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > The issue posed orgininally was never “getting pregnant.” It was getting pregnant for the purpose of avoiding duty in Iraq. You’d have to prove someone hurt themselves by _intent_ to evade dangerous duty, and that’s kind of a stretch through ‘malingering’ in the [UCMJ](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#915.%20ART%20115.%20MALINGERING). **leenmi** is right, that it’s a management issue. If a commander can’t find another body to stick into a line number on a deploying UTC, that commander isn’t managing his people correctly. There’s always alternates, waivers, or shortfall actions that can be taken. But no, there’d have to be pretty strong evidence, and a very good reason to take administrative action against the mother (i.e., she’s done this before–twice). I’ve seen women get pregnant _in_ the desert, and AFAIK, it was a slap on the wrist for not being careful, and a plane ticket home. I have more faith in the guys and gals I work with that integrity would keep them from doing this intentionally (plus, think of the financial and morale hardships). Tripler Here’s your $0.98 in change. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/29 "2005-04-23T00:53:00Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > You’d have to prove someone hurt themselves by _intent_ to evade dangerous duty, and that’s kind of a stretch through ‘malingering’ in the [UCMJ](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#915.%20ART%20115.%20MALINGERING). And that’s why [this post of mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6083196&postcount=6) read like this. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/30 "2005-04-23T01:33:27Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > And that’s why [this post of mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6083196&postcount=6) read like this. I should have said, “hurt themselves/got knocked up solely for the purposes of”. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/31 "2005-04-23T07:03:39Z")
> [@bob fortuna](#): > > No cite , but if you are on active duty and go out and get sunburnt, "they"can actually give you “non judicial punishment” for damaging government property under the (UCMJ) uniform code of military justice, if you are unable to perform your duties the next day . I’ve seen someone taken to mast for wearing white socks. I’ve also seen someone go to mast for circumstances stemming from them having a bad sunburn, but the actual charge was UA, not “damaging government property”. Both were straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back type situations… in the greater context of who they were and what else they’d been doing, it made sense. As for the OP… Might have worked in the past. Navy is throwing around the idea that if you have three failures in the past three years you will not be allowed to re-enlist. They’re looking for reasons to make people time out. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/32 "2005-04-23T07:17:45Z")
Oh, and to be sent forth to do battle against the evil doers you need only be “Fit for Full Duty”, which bears little resemblance to the physical readiness guidelines. I doubt it would be physically possible to go from within guidelines to morbidly obese in 60 days. If you did manage it, it would be mighty hard to convince folks it was an accident, I’magine. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/33 "2005-04-23T15:42:25Z")
[Slight Aside] What’s “going to mast”? It sounds like Squid-slang for serving an Article 15. Is it any different than just formally serving the paperwork? [/Slight Aside] See, when I was a Section Commander (A commander’s administrative/personnel guy in the AF), I actually served an Art 15 as a Lieutenant (rare). But it’s like you said, this guy had a litany of piddlyshit and not-so-piddlyshit things including Letters of Reprimand we kind of combined into one big thing. Usually, commanders serve an Art 15 because their rank alows them to levy heavier punishments, but hey, it worked and the guy had walked the straight and narrow ever since. Tripler Since then I’ve been promoted to a Chairborne PowerPoint Ranger. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524/34 "2005-04-23T16:30:38Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > What’s “going to mast”? It sounds like Squid-slang for serving an Article 15. Is it any different than just formally serving the paperwork? “Captain’s Mast” – yeah, just an Article 15. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-question/300524.md?page=1)