Larson said Hutchinson’s command did offer her child-care options when her plan fell through, but did not specify if those options included foster care, as was alleged by Courage to Resist. “So far, Spc. Hutchinson has chosen not to take advantage of any of those options,” Larson said. “A well-known veterans group was one of the groups offering to assist Spc. Hutchinson in caring for her child during her deployment. This group has an accredited child-care facility for soldiers in just these circumstances.”

Coastal Courier reports. No specifics yet on a court-martial trial date.

FrumForum interviewed retired Major Merideth A. Bucher, author of the much cited paper, The Impact of Pregnancy on U.S. Army Readiness. Bucher explains that a woman who becomes pregnant ceases to be available for combat service. She will be returned home; her unit is left missing a body, a soldier. She passionately told of her own experience: Two days before Desert Storm was to begin the female intelligence officer in the Major’s battalion became aware she was pregnant. Because she could not deploy and was sent home the battalion was left vulnerable by having to fight without an intelligence officer present. By losing one person everyone else has to work that much harder to get the mission accomplished. And when a woman soldier in particular gets pregnant, Bucher argues, “it weakens every female soldier standing as a member of that unit. If one woman does that it taints the water for everybody.”

Here is the link to Bucher’s paper, written when she was a major at the Air Command & Staff College, Air University.

The recent order about pregnancy while assigned to the AOR is in the process of being revoked, and the overall regulation (GO#1) under major revision. There will not be a court-martial for getting pregnant or getting a woman pregnant. My recollection is that the Navy went through turmoil when women were first assigned to combatant ships in mixed gender crews. At the time there was in place a fairly rigid sexual fraternization order, prohibiting sexual relations amongst crew members, even if the couple was married.

Bob McCarty has blogged the issue from what appears to be a non-lawyer perspective.

Seven U.S. soldiers, including three men, have already been punished under six-week-old rules making pregnancy a violation of military law in northern Iraq.

Stars & Stripes reports.

The four soldiers who became pregnant were given letters of reprimand that will not remain a part of the permanent military file, Cucolo said, as were two of the male soldiers. The third male soldier, a noncommissioned officer who is married and impregnated a subordinate who is not his wife, was also charged with fraternization and given a permanent letter of reprimand, Cucolo said. One of the female soldiers declined to say who impregnated her and the unit “let it drop,” Cucolo said, adding that he had no plans to further investigate paternity.

While Prof. Cory Yung reports: New Hampshire may finally eliminate their criminal adultery statute from the book.

A US Army general in northern Iraq has defended his decision to add pregnancy to the list of reasons a soldier under his command could face court martial.

The BBC reports.

The Army general commanding U.S. forces in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the list of prohibitions for personnel under his command.

The policy, which went into effect Nov. 4, makes it possible to face punishment, including a court-martial and jail time, for becoming pregnant or impregnating a servicemember, according to the wording of the policy and confirmations from Army officials.

Stars & Stripes reports.

This may be a new and seemingly draconian policy for the Army. However, the type of policy envisioned isn’t new in my view. The policy doesn’t actually punish pregnancy it seems, what it prohibits and potentially punishes is a form of fraternization. The Navy has operated under policies prohibiting sexual relationships among crew-members of ships – of mixed gender crews, n.1. As the GCMCA has indicated, there is an adverse impact on units for deployed soldiers who become pregnant. On the surface this order borders on interference with personal behavior of the people involved and subject to challenge as unlawful. But the impact does seem reasonably related to an ongoing combat mission and only applies to personnel within the AOR during the time they are assigned to the AOR. It seems to me that military law does allow for such an order, but I would expect challenges.

To be lawful the order must relate to military duty – includes all acts reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, to safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and which is directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not interfere with private rights or personal affairs. But conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of lawful order. See United States v. Hughey, 46 M.J. 152, 154 and n.2 (C.A.A.F. 1997).

In principal it is the defense burden to prove that an order is illegal unless the order is “palpably illegal on its face.” United States v. Kapla, 22 C.M.R. 825, 827 (A.F.B.R. 1956). Orders are thus clothed with an inference of lawfulness. See Hughey, 46 M.J. at 154; United States v. Nieves, 44 M.J. 96, 98 (C.A.A.F. 1996). “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” The accused has the burden to establish that the order is not lawful. Hughey, 46 M.J. at 154; United States v. Smith, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 231, 234, 45 C.M.R. 5, 8 (1972).

———————————————

n.1: Caution — haven’t checked, there may be a case or two on the Navy policies.