Would it be wrong for MARSOC to put a restriction on a female saying she cannot get pregnant for X amount of time while in MARSOC?

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 07:41:09 -0400

The Marine Corps is going to start creating studies of females in many different jobs that were closed out to them previously.

They have started with females going through the School of infantry and have now incorporated them into even different weapons MOSs.

There is also a study standing up in January of 2016 where females and males will be take part in a special task force to study females in actual infantry roles.

Now to the question: There has also been talk of females joining MARSOC (Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command)assessment and selection process to become operators. The amount of training and time that it takes to make an operator and the rapid deployment of these forces would make it almost impossible for a team member to be out for 9 months, plus an additional 6 months for maternity leave. Would it be wrong for MARSOC to put a restriction on a female who wishes to join MARSOC by saying that if you choose to join you cannot get pregnant for X amount of time while in MARSOC?

Response by MSG Martinis Butler made May 29 at 2014 7:49 AM

MSG Martinis Butler — Thu, 29 May 2014 07:49:13 -0400

Tactfully explaining to a female prior the do's and dont's should not be considered a bad idea. Tour family comes first so if they know it could be a slight chance that they'd want to have a child then they should keep that in mind. When you say your going to place the mission first then you should know what your getting yourself into and having children should be an after thought for the time being.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made May 29 at 2014 9:06 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 29 May 2014 09:06:10 -0400

Maternity leave is 6 weeks not 6 months.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made May 29 at 2014 10:19 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Thu, 29 May 2014 10:19:01 -0400

I would think that if a female was going to join MARSOC or any other Special Operations unit, she would go in knowing what the OPTEMPO is like, what demands are placed on the operators and what she might have to give up. And I would think if she decided to have a child, she would come to that decision after looking at everything within her life including her role as an operator so I don't think this would need to be control by the military. The female operator will be smart enough to understand what she is getting herself into.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 10:38 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 10:38:44 -0400

Gentlemen,

Are you going to tell men they can't tear a tendon, break a leg, or suffer a groin, testicular, urethral, prostate, corpora cavernosa, or corpus spongiosum injury?

Pregnancy is not necessarily an elective outcome. Are you going to ask a woman to terminate an unintended pregnancy?

Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 2:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 14:12:35 -0400

Now this is a tricky question. All Soldiers join the military knowing the possibility of deployment and being stationed overseas. Female Soldiers join knowing there are times they must (should) take or use some form of contraceptive. At the same time there will always be the Soldiers who change there mind at the last minute. I am not digging on female Soldiers there are male Soldiers that do this as well (in a different way obviously.) I know that some times accidents happen and some times unwanted pregnancy's happen with contraceptives. However the pullout method is not an accident. I do know female Soldiers who have purposely gotten pregnant so they did not deploy, I can see one accident however the 2nd time she should be discharged. Same with a male Soldier I know one who was caught bragging that he had a friend brake his arm with a baseball bat so he did not have to deploy. Which reminds me of another question "Should a Soldier who claims Conscientious objector be discharged instead of kept overseas/in the military wasting tax payers dollars."

Response by SGT James Elphick made May 29 at 2014 2:28 PM

SGT James Elphick — Thu, 29 May 2014 14:28:08 -0400

To me it seems reasonable to ask females not to get pregnant and to remove them from the unit if they do. I base this on the fact that the Army Rangers maintain a high-level of unit readiness and major injuries, such as the ones described by LT Annala, will see a soldier removed from regiment and sent to another unit.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 8:44 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 May 2014 20:44:05 -0400

No Sir, it would not be wrong. I have my own opinion on females being in an Infantry MOS but I also have to realistically believe that any female Soldier/Marine who is dedicated enough to be in SF or MARSOC isn't going to jeopardize her career , her fellow team mates or the mission by getting pregnant. I am confident that a Soldier or Marine of that caliber would decide on the right time and place for that to happen.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2014 7:58 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:58:53 -0400

I would wonder if mandatory birth control would be considered as a standard precaution? Something along the lines of Depo-Provera, which would then need to be maintained throughout deployment or situation. I would think that this would be considered along the same lines as any other preventative pre-deployment medical procedure/inoculation, assuming of course that requirement is stipulated up front, well spelled out and agreed to.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2014 8:13 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:13:48 -0400

Now I am not sure on how the pipeline for MARSOC is. If I was to use the SF training model of SFAS/Q-Course/Team time/Staff time. IF I was in charge of writing the manual. If a female Soldier in the pipeline became pregnant I would hold an inquiry board. Depending on how long thru the pipeline if I would do a dissmissal from the course. With a 90% chance of the dismissal happening. Same thing if this Soldier was in their inital team time (say first 3 years after graduating from Q-course) You finish Q-course then come up pregnant in the first 3 months.....good bye go back to the the regular army, re-apply for SF in 24 months. You come back from deployment, been on a team for 2-3 years....take some time off go work on staff.

I feel if the army spends the money on you to train you for 1-2 years you owe it to the army to contribute back, for a similar amount of time. Its a break in the trust that the army would place to spend all that money on you to train you etc.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 3 at 2014 6:59 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 18:59:50 -0400

My compliments LT on an excellent question! Its easy to come up with arguments on both sides. If you make a career choice sometimes sacrifices need to be made. I'd be hard pressed to believe that men who choose a SPECOPS career don't have to wrestle with decisions about marriage and family. If women choose that career path they would be faced with the same decisions. Generally, it takes 2 to decide on having a baby, so if the woman has selected that career path, hopefully its a joint decision on if and when to have children. Hopefully it would be understood that the career comes first so that something of this nature doesn't have to be mandated.

Response by Sgt S.P. Woodke made Jul 4 at 2014 11:40 AM

Sgt S.P. Woodke — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 11:40:03 -0400

Fiscally speaking ...HELL NO it should NOT be allowed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 11:52 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 23:52:05 -0400

There are very few true accidents in pregnancy. If she uses multiple contraceptives, ie birth control pill, IUD, or implants and uses condoms then yeah that is a plausible accident. But if there are no actions taken other than pulling out that is not an accident.

Response by MAJ Joseph Parker made Aug 13 at 2014 10:18 PM

MAJ Joseph Parker — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:18:31 -0400

1LT Annala is absolutely correct. Besides, most of our female SMs (and their spouses) are smart enough and professional to know when it is a good time to have children and when it isn't. Even most of the male SM's work with their wives on family planning. No SM or spouse can prevent the occasional unscheduled progeny; any more than they can prevent a sudden deployment order when the Chain was sure there would be no deployments for the next 18 months and the family decided to add their number while there was an opportunity to do so.

Our leadership should be smart enough to work around this issue. No, we can't order people NOT to have children. We train professionals to manage their personal lives in a manner that has the least impact on mission accomplishment and give them full support in that endeavor. Besides, Special Operations isn't like the movies, which tend to glamorize the Direct Action missions aspect of Special Operations. DA is a very small part of Special Ops, and more than 90% of Special Ops positions are not Infantry. You might be surprised, 2LT Blais, how many "operators" are actually women, and very formidable operators, too.

Response by Sgt Stephen Mutschler made Dec 11 at 2014 11:43 PM

Sgt Stephen Mutschler — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:43:48 -0500

I think it's ok to say don't get pregnant, if u do u are out!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2014 10:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 22:05:19 -0500

Spay and neuter your operators. Problem solved. NEXT!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2014 10:21 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 22:21:22 -0500

First, they have to meet the training stardards to get into the unit. She they become pregnant, then they would be released and reassigned to another unit, non- SPEC OPS.

Hopefully when DOD and Congress and whoever decided it was time to incorporate women into combat arms and special warfare units, this was a factor they considered (using common sense of course, so it's doubtful).

As I've said in other posts, any female who does meet the training standards should be afforded the opportunity to serve in Special Ops. One thing we all know, the mental and physical challenges are going to to be so much greater on females.

The Army is allowing Females to go thru Ranger School, however, if they pass, they will not be assigned to the Ranger Regiment. That assignment possibility will be looked at sometime in 2016. My feeling is, they will continue to attend Ranger School, but will not be assigned to the Regiment. I do feel there are places in Special Ops for females, however the Ranger Regiment is NOT one of them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 7:15 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:15:12 -0500

I see female Marines every day working beside men as Tankers. Yet some people on the army side are still very resistant on females becoming tankers. Talking about they can't lift the rounds etc. Yetthey are being proven wrong every day. Not to mention that the female mechanics we have had the last 2 years now have been lifting the arms, starters, and other components that weigh more then a round. Women are going to end up in every MOS I believe . I have a group of females that live below my ALC studnerts, and they are here in Benning to get ready for ranger school. Will all of them make it? of course not, but how many of us males wouoldn't make it either.

I think the preganacy thing could from the amount of time schooling is, then followed by the rapid deployment. In a way I couold understand it, but same time its kinda BS.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 17 at 2015 3:15 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:15:27 -0400

Can you stop them from getting pregnant? No. Can you boot the ones that do back to the non "Special" units? Certainly.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Mar 17 at 2015 9:21 PM

BG David Fleming III — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:21:02 -0400

I didn't think there is a black and white answer to the question. Every woman is different. Some would choose raising the child over her career. Others would fight to get back into the action. I applaud them both! If you have made the necessary arrangements for the raising of the child, good for you and you should be able to get back into the fight. Great question.

Response by LCpl Philip Hollen made Mar 17 at 2015 9:33 PM

LCpl Philip Hollen — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:33:51 -0400

Absolutely not. Females have no place in combat arms MOSs ANYWAY!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 2:33 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 02:33:21 -0400

Not to take away from the discussion, but I'm stuck on the six months maternity leave... Think it's six weeks over on this side.

And not a bad idea - just something you'd formulate into terms of a contract. I don't see why any female who legitimately wanted to be a part of any SO community in an operator capacity for the right reasons would be opposed to this. Questions arise though in the event of an accidental pregnancy.

Response by Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns made Mar 18 at 2015 11:33 AM

Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:33:37 -0400

Yes it would be and the simple fact is, a Marine is a Marine regardless of sex. The only reason this maybe or is even a question is a difference in sex. No one should be prevented from serving their country in any capacity that they choose and we should not be making rules that exclude anyone. Regarding getting pregnant, that is and never should be a cause for dismissal but all should be fore-warned that it may deter completion and if anything damages or causes the mission to be in jeopardy, that cause should be resolved. There are males who claim to be sick, dead or dying to get out of deployments but no one questions their commitment to the service, are we now about to begin questioning females commitment by making these or this type of rule?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Mar 9 at 2016 2:47 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:47:47 -0500

It March 2016, do you have new input on your thread given the recent changes of women in combat?

Response by LCpl Mike Zacher made Jun 7 at 2016 11:14 AM

LCpl Mike Zacher — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:14:27 -0400

no.. since we have gone down hill with this social experiment.. she should be 7+ months pregnant and then the doc can deliver her kid behind the lines.. really.. any common sense left around here

Response by SSgt Bruce Wood made Jun 7 at 2016 11:31 AM

SSgt Bruce Wood — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:31:41 -0400

I believe if she wants to be in a particular unit and especially a rapid response unit she should be willing to do what it requires to fill the billet and not getting pregnant is one. If she is not willing to do this then se should not be allowed to join this unit. All type of jobs require certain requirements whether it be the amount of time you have to sign up for to not getting pregnant and others. If a team id dependent on you and having to be ready to respond then you should be willing to make what ever sacrifice that is required to fill that job if that is what you want.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 11:36 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:36:08 -0400

Personally, I think it would be wrong--and open up a huge issue within Congress. The issue you state is not unique to MarSoc--it's common to any unit that deploys, and especially small teams (EOD, HUMINT, Civil Affairs, etc.). Any policy should address a team members ability to deploy and function as a member of a team (whether they break a leg, have a child with special needs that cannot be left alone, or become pregnant). If they cannot perform the duties--but are still qualified--they should be reassigned/replaced until they are able to carry on their duties.

Response by GySgt Keith Brownmiller made Jun 7 at 2016 11:53 AM

GySgt Keith Brownmiller — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:53:07 -0400

Many of the folks here may not go as far back as I do, but back when I enlisted the policy was simple, if the woman got pregnant she was discharged with a general. Then as the feminist movement continued the policy was cancelled.

So because of all the specialized training required for MARSOC, I see absolutely no problem requiring a woman to sign a legal document stating that for a given period of time say 3 years that she will NOT get pregnant, and if she does she will be discharged. People today should be smart enough to ensure they don't get pregnant.

Response by SSgt Joseph Thayer made Jun 7 at 2016 1:15 PM

SSgt Joseph Thayer — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:15:54 -0400

The Marine Corps already completed a study which showed conclusively that women in infantry roles is detrimental to the unit. That isn't debatable. The SECNAV ignored the study. As for getting pregnant, I've seen that used too many times as a way to get out of a deployment. It wouldn't hurt to put restrictions in place but that won't happen because it's not "fair"

Response by Sgt Able Snider made Jun 7 at 2016 2:14 PM

Sgt Able Snider — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 14:14:11 -0400

The fact that this is even a question is the problem.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jun 7 at 2016 4:11 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:11:39 -0400

Specifically for pregnancy, I would say yes its wrong, in my opinion. However, pregnancy should be treated like any other medical issue that has duty restrictions (profile). If the SM has a medical condition, temporary or permanent profile, that prevents them from being deployable or capable of performing the duties of their assignment for an extended period of time, then they should be re-assigned to the needs of the service in a position that they are capable of performing with their profile. In other words, a medical profile is a medical profile regardless of how it occurred. JMO.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 4:15 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:15:47 -0400

Good discussion. I remember when a pregnancy was called instant discharge.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made Jun 7 at 2016 5:51 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:51:49 -0400

To me this is common sense.. There SHOULD be a mandate.. A woman wants to be MARSOC or any other specop and they need to have known limitations including restrictions on getting pregnant.

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Jun 8 at 2016 8:55 AM

SSgt Christophe Murphy — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 08:55:25 -0400

I served 3 and a half years on MSG (Marine Security Guard) duty serving at embassies overseas. When you join that duty as a Sgt and below you are forced to sign a page 11 stating you won't get married while on this duty. If you get married you get the page 11 ran and removed from the program.

I went to school with 7 females and only 1 finished her tour. All of the others got pregnant. You can't enforce a no pregnancy rule as contraception isn't mandatory or 100% effective. Plus what do you do if they are Catholic?

Response by LCpl Bradley Otto made Jun 8 at 2016 1:55 PM

LCpl Bradley Otto — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:55:11 -0400

The whole key to RAPID deployment is that team members are trained and ready to jump to the call. I don't mean to be sexist, but if your pregnant and can't afford to do the job you qualified to do then you shouldn't hold a spot of a field operator. The Marines should never consider lowering or making exceptions to the rules that have brought us the best warriors ever. Do it right or stand aside.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jun 8 at 2016 3:20 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:20:58 -0400

No, I do not believe it is wrong because when they get pregnant, they are put in a Limited Duty status. It's hard to plan an operation if you don't have qualified personnel to carry out the mission.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2016 6:31 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:31:13 -0400

Yes....it would be wrong. And pretty draconian as well. Look at pregnancy like a torn ACL. I certainly didn't intend to tear mine.....but there I was all the same. I wasn't subject to UCMJ. It was just bum luck. After the surgery and the rehab, you're looking at 9 months. You could tear your ACL doing every physical activity under the SOF umbrella. You still go out on your own time and play sports, walk across icy driveways and climb ladders. This is placing additional rules on females that don't apply to males. Unless you plan not to have sex while in MARSOC. Is that a realistic or even logical thing to ask or mandate?

Response by SPC Robb Sidebottom made Jun 8 at 2016 6:31 PM

SPC Robb Sidebottom — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:31:23 -0400

I was written up and restricted to barracks for getting a sunburn after being ordered to participate in a charity car wash planned by my unit. Then, my unit deployed to the Middle East and several of the females, married or not, ended up pregnant and returned stateside. I don't feel as though it's too much to ask someone who has volunteered for SO to refrain from becoming pregnant or risk being transferred out. Commen sense at its most basic definition.

Response by MSgt Gloria Vance made Jun 8 at 2016 8:11 PM

MSgt Gloria Vance — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:11:52 -0400

No.... There should be a restriction. They have made it into Special Ops... Why disqualify themselves?

Response by CW2 Louis Melendez made Jun 8 at 2016 8:16 PM

CW2 Louis Melendez — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:16:46 -0400

I don't think so. They should've thought about these details before opening Pandora's box. Now, you have Subordinate Commands trying to figure out what the hell to do on these situations. SMH

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2016 9:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:48:29 -0400

I don't think it is an unreasonable request, however the timeline and possible consequences or changes in job due to a pregnancy need to be discussed beforehand. Not all pregnancies are planned, and not all female soldiers are married when they get pregnant.
With that said, I do not think that forcing a female to hold off on a family for an extended amount of time is a proper request. I know females carry and birth the child, but a male soldier would never be forced to chose like that. Also, everyone is different when they want to start a family. Everyone will have a different opinion about when the "right time" is.

Response by LCpl Nicholas Hines made Jun 8 at 2016 10:42 PM

LCpl Nicholas Hines — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 22:42:31 -0400

Well seeing as it would take a team member out of the fight I agree. Females would have to pass a SOF selection for this to happen, which will never happen.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2016 11:58 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:58:04 -0400

We had 5 or 6 female Soldiers not go on the last deployment because they were pregnant. Only one was married, so draw your own conclusions about that. In garrison it is not big deal, but we had folks in the S2 and S6 working shorthanded because the pregnant ones could not deploy. I think it is a valid question as to what the Army (or all the services, actually) are going to do when you lose a woman to a non-deployable profile for 15 months.....9 months of pregnancy and 6 months postpartum profile.

Response by PO3 Arthur Dunham made Jun 9 at 2016 5:25 AM

PO3 Arthur Dunham — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 05:25:49 -0400

WTF!!!! Tell men to keep their woodies in their pants and maybe women would not get preggie!!!!! It is a two way street here. Women have always played a major role in the military but they are the least appreciated. Grow to the person that posted this Bull S..t.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2016 7:59 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 07:59:22 -0400

I imagine that a woman enduring MARSOC training and maintaining required fitness levels is going to have a tough time getting pregnant any way. The hormone disruption would require effort to overcome.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Jun 10 at 2016 1:18 PM

SSG Richard Reilly — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:18:16 -0400

Legally yes. Personally no. That is a huge problem to deal with around deployments.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2016 12:05 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:05:49 -0400

Well, if there are any women in MARSOC, it's because they lowered the physical standards, or ignored them (like Ranger School did). In which case, who cares? The inmates are already running the asylum, and the military has become a massive welfare and vocational training program instead of a war-fighting organization.

Response by LTC Robert McKenna made Jun 23 at 2016 1:02 PM

LTC Robert McKenna — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:02:30 -0400

If you just eliminate MARSOC, then the issue goes away....problem solved.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 28 at 2016 10:39 AM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:39:00 -0400

The restriction is a good idea, if the female can't comply she can do something else.

Response by MAJ Rene De La Rosa made Aug 1 at 2019 7:10 AM

MAJ Rene De La Rosa — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 07:10:49 -0400

You cannot exactly regulate Mother Nature.