Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft
Source: Politico
Senate Democrats are proposing a sweeping rewrite of the military draft laws aimed at requiring women to register for the Selective Service System, according to a draft authored by Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed and obtained by POLITICO.
The changes to Selective Service could be attached to the National Defense Authorization Act, a defense policy bill thats one of the few pieces of legislation considered a must-pass by Congress. The move would reignite a contentious debate over whether women should be required to register for the draft, a move the House and Senate have each considered in recent years, though the change has never become law.
The language proposed by Reed (D-R.I.) would expand registration for the service to All Americans, striking explicit references to males. Its expected to be considered during committee markup this week; floor action on the bill would wait until later this year. A spokesperson for Reed declined to comment.
Currently, law states that U.S. men must register for the service when they turn 18 for potential military conscription, though no one has been drafted into the military in more than four decades. Men who fail to register for the draft can be fined, imprisoned or denied federal jobs.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/senate-democrats-propose-women-military-drafts-500153
JohnSJ
(92,136 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)especially at this time. They could argue National Service in all those capacities, but this one is controversial.
JohnSJ
(92,136 posts)on how it introduces additional risk into the mid-terms?
JohnSJ
(92,136 posts)FBaggins
(26,727 posts)And they are almost universally blue voters already.
But there are quite a few people who might oppose it who would otherwise be reachable voters.
Now... the right thing to do is the right thing to do. Certainly. But since none of us expect to actually have a draft any time soon... there's no real impact of the policy.
DemocraticPatriot
(4,343 posts)That will certainly not help with our base, in my humble opinion. Republicans will oppose it, certainly, but only because they presume women are unfit for military service-- but I think they would reap the benefits of being opposed to expanding a potential military draft, in spite of their reasons.
We have fought several wars with our all-volunteer army. I think it is time to abolish the Selective Service. I was vehemently opposed to President Carter re-instating it at the time. It is a little too close to "involuntary servitude", isn't it?
(Of course, Ronald Reagan campaigned against it in 1980-- then when he was in office, forgot his promise and actually prosecuted registration resisters, instead... the lying dog).
In any real crisis, there will be plenty of citizens willing to volunteer to defend this country, just as there were after 9-11, without drafting citizens against their will...
It is the wrong course to make a bad law 'politically correct' or ' non-discriminatory based on sex',
which ought to be ABOLISHED in the first place.
Pursuing this will hand the GOP a REAL issue, which they have been hard-pressed to come up with, against our party in the mid-terms. We don't need it. It is way down the list of priorities-- and I oppose it myself, on the principle that we should be abolishing the set-up for a military draft, not expanding it.
yardwork
(61,588 posts)Escurumbele
(3,386 posts)I don't get it...
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)If that's what you were asking.
Cinnamonspice
(163 posts)I understand the concept. Treat women equally, but it's going to cause problems.
DemocraticPatriot
(4,343 posts)Skittles
(153,147 posts)but then, I actually did serve
Skittles
(153,147 posts)watching this (needs sound).....a......harrowing music video
BigmanPigman
(51,584 posts)I always play the long version on New Years.
My military service was spent keeping the state of Alabama safe from Cuban incursion.
Recce pilot.
"Alone, unarmed, and unafraid"
Also: We killum with Fillum.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Pass the Equal Rights Amendment and then get back with me.
with you.
TheProle
(2,165 posts)WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether its sex discrimination for the government to require only men to register for the draft when they turn 18.
The question of whether its unconstitutional to require men but not women to register could be viewed as one with little practical impact. The last time there was a draft was during the Vietnam War, and the military has been all-volunteer since. But the registration requirement is one of the few remaining places where federal law treats men and women differently, and womens groups are among those arguing that allowing it to stand is harmful.
Just last year, a congressional commission concluded that the time is right to extend the obligation to register to women. The current disparate treatment of women unacceptably excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation and reinforces gender stereotypes about the role of women, undermining national security, the commission said in a report.
The Biden administration is urging the justices not to take the case and to let Congress instead tackle the issue. Administration lawyers wrote in a brief that any reconsideration of the constitutionality of the male-only registration requirement ... would be premature at this time because Congress is actively considering the issue.
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-courts-government-and-politics-847452b349a4a00c6a6ff67d5c58f3c2?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)...under certain circumstances. If we had a lottery draft that would kick in AUTOMATICALLY for any armed conflict that lasted longer than four months, and required more than 20,000 troops, the USA would have been involved in a lot fewer wars. Congress wouldn't be so quick to throw troops into combat every other week if they knew their own precious little brats were in the bingo cage along with everybody else's kids.
Having said that, whichever party introduces legislation on this will lose the youth vote for a century. Can't we at least do some good before committing political suicide?
Letting the Supreme Court do the dirty work is the best thing for it! Kill two birds with one stone. Have the court rule that women should be included in the draft; and then add THAT to the list of reasons the SCOTUS needs to be reformed.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)and they can fuck right off.
slightlv
(2,787 posts)With Texas' law ruling against teaching suffrage and SCOTUS set to rule against Roe v Wade, and all the other issue with bodily autonomy...
I say "NO" to this UNLESS we are granted the ERA and control of our bodies are given back to us, instead of to male politicians who don't know a uterus from a pancreas.
Jay25
(417 posts)dflprincess
(28,075 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Women being drafted was one of the boogie man threats made by the right against the ERA.
What on earth were they thinking?
happy feet
(869 posts)I wonder who thought this a good idea?
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)Once upon a time, Kennedy's council on physical fitness ((on which my grandmother's cousin served)) was merely encouraging more physical fitness, even amongst youth.
Fast forward to today. Most males in the sought-for 18-26 year old market are either physically or morally ineligible (unless waived).
And even more so for females ((at least physically)). Navy proudly announced a couple of days ago that ONE female managed to pass the SWCC course after 14 others washed out ((3 still ongoing)).
Unless the goal is to build a home garrison force to support those that can get out on the tip of the spear??
((In WWII, I would have been classified 4F, or maybe fit only to serve at the War Department.))
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)Back in the day, recruiters complained that passing through students meant that "high school graduates" couldn't score high enough ASVAB scores to get accepted into the military.
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)For the reasons I cited above.
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)Jimmy Carter tried to monkey with the draft, to include women, and ended up a one termer. Is this really what we want? Do Democrats really HATE WINNING ELECTIONS THIS MUCH?
Let me state my actual position: I'm in FAVOUR of a LOTTERY DRAFT that includes women, and the draft would kick in AUTOMATICALLY for any armed conflict that took more than 20,000 troops more than three months.
If we had that in place, the United States wouldn't have been in a state of perpetual war for the last 80 years. Not if all the Congressmen and Senators had their precious little brats in the bingo cage.
That's what we need, but whoever actually DOES it will lose the youth vote for a century.
Can't we at least FIX THE MIDDLE CLASS before we commit political suicide???
SouthBayDem
(32,017 posts)Carter was vulnerable even without the "women in the draft" idea.
C Moon
(12,212 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 19, 2021, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)
THEN include women in the draft.
You want to hand the R's a weapon? Include women in the draft before they are equal citizens.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #19)
OnlinePoker This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)BradAllison
(1,879 posts)Or so I'm told.
IronLionZion
(45,427 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)NT
IronLionZion
(45,427 posts)Finland is also voluntary.
The mandatory women conscription countries are: Bolivia, Chad, Eritrea, Israel, Mozambique, North Korea, Norway, Sweden.
Others have done it for medical service or farm/factory/transport service during wartime like the Women's Land Army in UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Drafting_of_women
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)"Fewer than a third of countries currently have a military draft; most exclude women"
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/23/fewer-than-a-third-of-countries-currently-have-a-military-draft-most-exclude-women/
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)With equal rights comes equal responsibilities. Not before.
Polybius
(15,382 posts)Any discrimination based on sex would be illegal.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)modrepub
(3,494 posts)if women had "skin in the game" for the draft? African Americans served in the Civil War without equal citizenship and a lot longer under segregation. Women volunteered for the relief activities (Red Cross) and dome served in military hospitals before given the right to vote.
Morally, isn't it right to offer your services without expecting to be compensated via ERA?
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)An attempt by the D's to draft women would cause a huge backlash. Both independent women and women like me would be furious.
No way am I going to volunteer for a country that denies me and my daughter equal rights and threatens my freedom of choice.
Whereas lf we had an ERA, then the Supreme Court would automatically rule that women are subject to the draft. The R's have already conceded that. Their whole excuse for not approving it before was that it would make us subject.
marie999
(3,334 posts)I did not serve in Vietnam, but I don't know of any Russian linguists in the Army Security Agency who did. Some members of the Army Security Agency did calling their unit Radio Research and some were killed in action.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)under the Constitution.
trof
(54,256 posts)It's putting a thumb in the eye of many voters.
I don't think now is the time.
Sorry
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
George II
(67,782 posts)....would require everyone, women included, to register with the SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, not the "military draft". There hasn't been a "military draft" since June 30, 1972.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)how about they stop requiring males to register?
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,062 posts)Or, at a very minimum, permit registrants to register as conscientious objectors.
Many Quakers, and other traditional peace churches, view registration for the draft to be participation in war - so males (but not females) whose religious beliefs will not permit them to register face penalties.
thenelm1
(852 posts)In the interim, it just gives another talking point to rail against for the opposition. I swear some of these guys/women have no fore thought as to the perception or ammunition that they give to their opponents...
Meanwhile bills with immediate consequences, like voting rights & infrastructure hang in the balance...
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)and now they're trying to end women's ability to control their own healthcare.
thenelm1
(852 posts)a thing anymore?? I registered for the draft in 1973. I may be wrong, but draft registration hasn't been a requirement for a long time. And if it ever comes back as a serious political issue, I'd be in line with you protesting the requirement for women (or males) to have to register for a draft.
What I was getting at is, with all the immediate concerns the Dems need to address, who the heck is digging this up as an issue? At the moment it's completely absurd. And just gives the other guys, who'll bite at any perceived opportunity, another target to attack Dems.
On the other hand, some type of mandatory national service for all at 18 or whatever is a completely different prospect. Without specific details of an actual proposal, not something I want to comment on.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)but I agree it's a big mistake. We're handing the Rs a weapon to clobber us with.
Jon King
(1,910 posts)All US citizens should be require to participate just like in other countries. Then the rich would think twice about crap like the Iraq invasion if their darlings faced risks.
No deferments, everyone can serve some capacity. And all able bodies have equal chance at the front lines.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)A country that refused to pass the Equal Rights Amendment has no business drafting women.
Dial H For Hero
(2,971 posts)It's not as if there are thousands of ships, planes, and tanks going unused due to a lack of crews. Adding millions of young people to the armed forces would result in (at best) having a bunch of underequipped 3rd rate infantry units that we wouldn't have the ability to transport in significant numbers.
Pointless, and that's putting aside the issue of involuntary servitude.
slightlv
(2,787 posts)that women should be required to register for Selective Service, but only after the ERA is passed AND our bodily rights (and right to privacy thereof) are enshrined in law.
I say this as a female Vietnam Era veteran.
Klaralven
(7,510 posts)Response to TheProle (Original post)
ExTex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Baitball Blogger
(46,700 posts)SouthBayDem
(32,017 posts)The most visible names in the US government - Biden, Schumer, McConnell, and Pelosi - were all born in the 1940s and 1950s. I (a 90s kid) cannot wait until people of AOC's generation rise to the top.
Polybius
(15,382 posts)We shouldn't be skipped, wait your turn.
Baitball Blogger
(46,700 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,700 posts)I don't, necessarily, disagree with you. But that's some serious naivete to think progressives are going to make immense gains in red counties. The best we'll do is try to replace Democratic strongholds with progressives.
What you do have going for you (us) is that you're willing to call out all the Republicans for their bullshit and dirty playing. And you won't sell-out progressive ideals just to reach out across the aisle, when there's no one willing to even parlay with you.
What young progressives are bad at, is marketing their ideas to a wider audience.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Snackshack
(2,541 posts)On expecting anything out of this administration or congress to do anything that looks like holding anyone of significance from DT or his cabinet accountable. Garland is a huge disappointment, Schumer is a huge disappointment. The mid terms will come and the GOP will take back the majoritys thru their suppression and lack of votings right being passed and the rest of Bidens term will be spent in impeachment and hearings as the GOP has said they would do if back in the majority.
twodogsbarking
(9,732 posts)and only half (or less) of the military spending we have now.
marshall
(6,665 posts)Currently, the registration requirement for Selective Service is based on gender assigned at birth. This is an outdated concept, and the proposal to include all genders could be driven by the current push to recognize transmen as men.
manicdem
(388 posts)We should support this, we don't discriminate on rights when it suits us. ERA is better but I don't see an amendment ever getting passed. We have to work our way up one step at a time and this is the first step. I'm not sure if it is, but selected service should be open to any gender.
And I'm against getting rid of SS and the draft. It gives everyone a stake in a war and could prevent getting involved in some. I would change it where there are no exceptions for college attendance or profession. Everyone has a equal chance int he draft..