Pregnancy policy justified
Once again, it seems Democratic senators in Washington think they know how to deal with military matters better than the generals on the ground ("4 senators leading call to revoke pregnancy ban," article, Dec. 24).
I, for one, fully support Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo’s decision on pregnancies. Based on the sole fact that when a female military member becomes pregnant, she is immediately relieved of her duties if she works in any kind of hazardous environment, at war or at home station.
When this happens in combat, that person must be immediately removed from the area. That means airlift, expenses, training, preparation, etc., are all wasted, not to mention someone else must fill that void.
This ruling is not an infringement on anyone’s basic rights. In the military, we freely give up many of our basic rights to ensure citizens at home don’t have to do the same. A military member is prohibited from discussing details about military missions. Is that infringing on his basic rights? A military member is not allowed to attend a political rally in uniform. Is that an infringement on his rights?
There are a plethora of basic freedoms we willingly give up every day to ensure the mission is fulfilled. Why is this any different?
The Army has fooled itself into thinking you can allow men and women on a yearlong tour to visit each other’s private quarters and not have these, and even worse, issues arise.
In the Air Force, men and women are not allowed to be in the quarters of anyone of the opposite sex. Call that an infringement on our basic rights, but the proof is in the pudding.
At this location, Air Force members had zero of the 50 in-theater pregnancies experienced over the last year. Senators, maybe generals do know best.
Chief Master Sgt. Daniel T. HutsonBagram Air Field, Afghanistan