![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/alu-hangers-black-22008-b-3779720571-300x256.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Back about six months ago, DoD announced that service members who needed abortions or pregnancy treatments not available where they were station could get admin time off and support to go get it elsewhere. SEN Tommy Tuberville responded by suspending bulk promotions to high ranks, and the rest is a PR war.<\/p>\n
As the hold drags on, about 300 generals and admirals have had their promotions stalled, and the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are all being led by acting chiefs, because replacements weren’t confirmed before the previous chiefs hit their legally mandated term limits. Military.com<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now, I have repeatedly read that if they really want to push the promotions through, they can – one at a time. Much slower, but it can be done.\u00a0 However,\u00a0 Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said 16 July it attacks the U.S.’ “ability to lead the free world.” (ignoring that she pulled a similar stunt when Trump was in office.) NBC News<\/a><\/p>\n
Asked Tuesday whether the Pentagon would be open to changing the policy in any way to compromise with Tuberville, deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh said, “No.” Military.com<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sounds compromising, no? Tuberville says 4,000-5,000 abortions a year will follow, from a Rand Corporation estimate of 2,573 and 4,136 active-duty service women have abortions annually. The Pentagon apparently believes the report authors who say going forward they expect the number to be lower, not higher. But who really know? Turns out… no one.<\/p>\n
Tuberville contends that the Pentagon will go from paying for roughly a dozen abortions a year performed only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother is dying from the pregnancy, to potentially thousands of abortions performed for any reason.<\/p>\n
Supporters of the policy, meanwhile, have cast the numbers of troops expected to use the policy as negligible compared to the overall size of the force and $800 billion defense budget.<\/p>\n
“The cost is very much de minimis<\/em>,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told reporters last month, adding that the number of troops expected to use the policy is “very, very small.”<\/p>\n
But the authors of the report have said it is likely fewer women would take advantage of the Pentagon policy since some are stationed in states without abortion restrictions and others will be uncomfortable disclosing health information to their commanders.<\/p>\n
It is unclear if the Pentagon has a more accurate projection. Asked for a projection, the defense official who spoke to Military.com pointed to the Rand Corp. report figure, and officials did not answer a follow-up question on whether they believe every service member who gets an abortion will use the policy.<\/p>\n
Still, once the Pentagon gets cost and usage data from the services, the numbers will not show how many troops used the policy to get an abortion compared with other reproductive health care. While service members who want to use the travel stipend and leave have to disclose they are getting some form of reproductive health care, they do not have to specify whether it is for an abortion.<\/p>\n
Further, the military will track the number of instances of travel or administrative absences rather than the number of individuals who use the policy “due to privacy concerns,” the defense official said. Military.com<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So on the one hand, we have holds without any real-world data to back them up. On the other, we have no idea what we’ll pay for, enablers who say “we’re already pissing away so much, what’s a little more?” (how about we pull it from THEIR paychecks then?) and no accounting how much is being spent or on whom, SIX MONTHS after the payout was authorized. And we wonder why we are in trouble…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"