General: Pregnant Troops Won't Be Punished
A controversial policy that put pregnant soldiers in war zones at risk of discipline will be rescinded under an order from the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Gen. Raymond Odierno has drafted a broad new policy for the U.S. forces in Iraq that will take effect Jan. 1, and that order will not include a pregnancy provision that one of his subordinate commanders enacted last month, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.
Odierno's order comes about a week after the pregnancy policy issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo triggered a storm of criticism. Cucolo had issued a policy that would permit the punishment of soldiers who become pregnant and their sexual partners.
The order listed a variety of offenses, and the punishments for them could range from minor discipline to a court-martial. But in a conference call with reporters earlier this week, Cucolo said he would never actually seek to jail someone over the pregnancy provision.
And he said the policy was intended to emphasize the problems created when pregnant soldiers go home and leave behind a weaker unit.
U.S. military leaders in Iraq conducted a full review of all existing orders as part of the ongoing transition in Iraq, and a new general order has been drafted. The order would consolidate several general orders from the U.S. commanders across Iraq. That policy, the military said Thursday, will not include the pregnancy provision.
Previously, the commanders have had the authority to draft their own restrictions.
AP Gen. Raymond Odierno has drafted a broad new policy for the U.S. forces in Iraq that will take effect Jan. 1, and that order will not include a pregnancy provision that one of his subordinate commanders enacted last month, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.
Odierno's order comes about a week after the pregnancy policy issued by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo triggered a storm of criticism. Cucolo had issued a policy that would permit the punishment of soldiers who become pregnant and their sexual partners.
The order listed a variety of offenses, and the punishments for them could range from minor discipline to a court-martial. But in a conference call with reporters earlier this week, Cucolo said he would never actually seek to jail someone over the pregnancy provision.
And he said the policy was intended to emphasize the problems created when pregnant soldiers go home and leave behind a weaker unit.
U.S. military leaders in Iraq conducted a full review of all existing orders as part of the ongoing transition in Iraq, and a new general order has been drafted. The order would consolidate several general orders from the U.S. commanders across Iraq. That policy, the military said Thursday, will not include the pregnancy provision.
Previously, the commanders have had the authority to draft their own restrictions.
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
One year after Afghan massacre, villagers work with U.S. troops One year after U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was accused of slaughtering 16 Afghan civilians, the villagers in the town where the atrocity took place have joined the U.S. special forces stationed there to assist in the fight against the Taliban.
- 50th Paris Air Show 19 Photos
- Celebration and devotion in India 14 Photos
- Rare twin birth for gorilla in Dutch zoo Play Video
- Nameplate to blame for halt in Afghan-Taliban talks
- John Paul II a step closer to sainthood
- Rare twin gorillas born in Dutch zoo
- Brazil protesters flood Sao Paulo streets for 2nd night
- Somali militants wage deadly attack on U.N. office













---------------------------------------------------
The above is not true. The order plainly stated that both civilian and military types would be prosecuted under this provision. It was not recinded until it became public and the General came under fire from all sides.
If they're not going to enforce it, they shouldn't have it as a rule.
But I don't see any reason to believe that gays are "better behaved" than women. Their own stories about how persecuted they are under 'don't ask, don't tell' (stories which they share freely, as evidence that DADT should be overturned so that they can be "open about their sexuality") rather suggests that they're just as sexually active as women. It is their attempts to pursue their right to have a sex life that gets them into trouble (otherwise nobody could possibly know they're gay). They think it's oppressive to have to be 'discreet' about it.
If we want a battlefield where the soldiers aren't screwing each other in the field, then we shouldn't put sexually compatible couples together in close proximity.
"That's not my thumb either."
If those women want equality, they should be prepared to accept the rules as well as the rights.
You mean not punished beyond the punishment that pregnancy already is ??????
They can't even take care of their own body enough to avoid getting knocked up.
What sort of male soldier can't even control his own body?
Apparently it does.
They can't even take care of their own body enough to avoid getting knocked up.
What sort of male soldier can't even control his own body?
============================================================
The one knocking up the female?