When the leaked US Supreme Court draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization hit the media, pro-choice advocates went from zero to hysterical in less time than it takes Joe Biden to lose his train of thought. Among the more extreme responses came in a Task & Purpose (T&P) article, “What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for the US military.” T&P went off the rails with the incendiary subtitle asking, “How many women in uniform are elected officials willing to kill because of this decision?” This jump-the-shark subtitle was a quote from a fringe military women’s advocacy group co-founder, former Marine Corps Sergeant Erin Kirk-Cuomo. But the sentiments are typical of the often exaggerated supposed consequences of the SCOTUS draft opinion.
Since 1973, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision to allow unfettered access to abortion has been perhaps the single most continuous, divisive assault on the American conscience. Undoing it and sending the legalization of abortion back to the states does not end the practice. Instead, it puts the responsibility on lawmakers closer to their respective constituencies. In America as a federal republic, it is the process the Founding Fathers had in mind. Those who argue the Supreme Court – an unelected body – should not be allowed to adjudicate the issue fail to remember the same body established Roe in the first place, setting off this brouhaha.
Nonetheless, vocal pro-choice advocates, and now some US Senators, have raised the strawman argument that overturning Roe will uniquely harm military women. "Service members don't have the luxury of choosing where they are stationed, and military treatment facilities don't provide elective abortions. That means the only option is to go off base, or even out of state and pay out of pocket for an abortion," Congresswoman Speier (D-CA) told T&P.
On May 12, a partisan group of eight US Senators - seven Democrats and one Independent - wrote to Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, keeping the hyperbolic screed going with comments like,
"While the final opinion could change, a final decision from the Court undermining fifty years of precedent established by Roe v. Wade would destroy the fundamental human and reproductive rights of millions of women, willfully disregarding public opinion and court precedent. As we await the Court's final decision, we cannot wait to act."
First, there is little evidence that most public opinion doesn't favor sending the abortion legalization back to the states. Second, it's doubtful the number "millions of women" is accurate if we're talking about military women.
If the letter isn't talking exclusively about military women, why is it addressed to the Secretary of Defense? Then there is the argument "Reversing Roe Would Harm Military Readiness, Abortion Rights Advocates Warn," as the headline in Defense One's article on the draft Dobbs ruling suggests. However, Kirk-Cuomo also asserted to Jacqueline Feldscher, writing for Defense One, "I would not want to enlist in a military that isn't protecting me in the service from being assaulted and won't protect me after the fact. If a woman is considering enlisting, I would highly encourage her to rethink that choice."
It's not clear how exactly not having the abortion license of Roe will impact the current readiness of the US Armed Forces. If Kirk-Cuomo means fewer women will want to join the military because of Dobbs being a "threat to recruitment and retention," as the Senators' letter opines, there is a remedy. She might want to consider that if the 1,222,100 (according to data from individual abortion clinics) babies aborted in 2004 had been allowed to live, the number of eligible young men and women in the pool of military recruits today would be 1.2 million larger. Consequently, more potential military members would actually increase overall readiness, by Kirk-Cuomo's reasoning.
The issues and emotions surrounding whether destroying babies in the womb is legally or morally justified will not go away anytime soon. And unfortunately, the pro-abortion lobby stirring up hysteria doesn’t help thoughtful discourse or assuage what fears military women might have.
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
