Is protesting draft for women in combat and national service worth your time? ACT NOW to contact your congressional representatives!

 

"Don't Draft Our Daughters" ˗ What are the Facts?

 

Conference Committee Meeting Behind Closed Doors NOW

To: Rabbi David Eidensohn

 

 

Further to my note just prior to Labor Day, it's time to sound the alarm about legislation to "Draft America's Daughters," which members of a House/Senate Conference Committee need to remove from the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2017.

 

As you may recall, after a surprise vote last May for House Armed Services Committee legislation mandating that young women register with Selective Service after their 18^th birthday, we were successful in blocking this legislation from the House version of the NDAA bill. (HR 4909)

 

But then Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain insisted on putting similar legislation to Draft Our Daughters, plus a step toward mandatory National Service, into the Senate version of the NDAA.  Chairman McCain did this without notice and behind closed doors. (SR 2814)

 

Now the Senate is back in session, trying to wrap things up in time for an early pre-election recess. Within a few days or weeks, members of the House/Senate Conference Committee will hammer out a combined version of the National Defense Authorization Act.The only responsible thing to do is for Senate conferees to "recede" to the House language, which calls for a study of Selective Service but does not include a mandate co-ed conscription.

 

If you care about this issue, the time to act is NOW!

 

Will you do what you can to make sure the defense bill does not include a mandate to Draft Our Daughters?

 

We need a storm of phone calls, letters, tweets, re-tweets, and thousands of congressional office website messages to persuade Chairman McCain and members of the Conference Committee that they must not pass legislation to Draft Our Daughters.

 

The articles about previous House and Senate actions which are embedded in the links above, include abundant background information on the issue.  CMR has also prepared this updated, one-page, two-sided Summary to make it easy for members of all interested organizations to activate their own communication networks and social media contacts to spread the news with urgency:

 

Defense Bill Conferees: "Don't Draft Our Daughters" Fact Sheet  

The Issue is National Security, Not "Equality"

 

The Fact Sheet includes information on how the legislators voted and lists the seventeen senators who co-signed a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). All co-signers of the Sasse letter, which respectfully asked Chairman McCain to reconsider and to drop his harmful Draft Our Daughters legislation from the Defense Authorization bill, should be thanked.

 

Sen. Sasse delivered his letter to Chairman McCain and other Conference Committee leaders on Monday, September 12, but senators who did not co-sign the Sasse letter should be encouraged to join Sen. Mike Rounds (SD), in sending their own messages to Chairman McCain and other members of the Conference Committee.

 

There is a great need for more grassroots pressure to persuade Chairman McCain to defer to the House version of the bill, which does not include a mandate to register young women.

 

The Department of Defense registered objections to many provisions in the Senate bill, but not to Chairman McCain's Draft Our Daughters provision.

 

This means that if the NDAA passes with McCain's language intact, President Obama will sign it, doing irreparable harm to military readiness as well as to young women.

 

We hope that you will encourage your members to contact their own members of the Senate and House, particularly Armed Services Committee members who will be involved in the House/Senate Conference to reconcile both versions of the NDAA.  As you know, there are many ways to do this, listed here for your convenience:

• Call U.S. Capitol Switchboard to reach all offices: 202/224-3121

• Write your Senator, Senate Office Building: Washington, D.C. 20510

• Write your Congressman, House Office Building: Washington, D.C. 20515

• Send a message on his/her webpages for constituent messages. Congress.gov 

• Use the very easy PJNet.com Mark Prasec Live "Don't Draft Our Daughters" Twitter Action Page to tweet and retweet messages to senators marked "Yes" if they signed the Sasse letter and "No" if they did not.

Our chances of success on the Draft Our Daughters issue are good but trade-off decisions will be made behind closed doors and the situation is unpredictable.  Please consider doing whatever you can at this critical time.

 

More information is available on our webpage,www.cmrlink.org.  If you have questions or would like to share information, please call Elaine Donnelly at 734/464-9430.

 

Tribute to Phyllis Schlafly

 

The sad news that Phyllis Schlafly died on September 5 at the age of 92, only a few weeks after her vigorous activities at the Cleveland Republican National Convention, hit the conservative movement hard. She was a constant, unfailing friend of the military and an advocate for superiority in national defense. These are some thoughts that Elaine Donnelly posted on CNSNews.com:

• The Power of the Positive Woman 

 Supportiong Our Military at the Values Voter Summit

 

CMR President Elaine Donnelly was pleased to participate in a panel discussion at the Family Research Council's nationally-known and influential Values Voters Summit on Friday, September 9. You can see the panel discussion titled The U.S. Military: Ready - Or Not? linked here, in the middle of many fine speakers at the popular event this year:

• Values Voter Summit - Video Archive 2016 

Also on the panel were host Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, USA (Ret.),  Maj. Gen. Gary Harrell, USA (Ret.), and Rep. James Bridenstine(R-OK).  

-- CMR

 

 

* * * * * *

 

The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.  Nothing in this article should be construed as an endorsement of any candidate. More information on all issues discussed is available on the CMR website,  www.cmrlink.org 

  

Discussions in Washington DC about Drafting Women for the US Military

ELAINE DONNELLY Center for Military Readiness

March 18, 2016 TO: Rabbi David Eidensohn        Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,     Fox News has decided to postpone the airing of their one-hour documentary titled"Fox News Reporting: Rising Threats - Shrinking Military," hosted by Bret Baier.  We are looking forward to seeing the program and will keep you posted. * * * * * *    Capitol Hill Panel Discussion Next Wednesday We are pleased to let you know that next Wednesday, there will be a Capitol Hillpanel discussion next Wednesday, March 23, titled Women Fighting on the Front Lines: What Does It Mean for Women, Men, and Military Preparedness? If you are located in the Washington, D.C. area, please consider attending what promises to be a first-rate, informative, and lively discussion, co-sponsored by The London Center for Policy Research and Independent Women's Forum. Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, USA (Ret) will moderate the discussion between four speakers: Gunnery Sgt. Jessie Jane Duff, USMC (Ret) and Maj. Gen. Bob Newman, USAF (Ret.) will speak in opposition to the administration's plans to assign women to direct ground combat (infantry) fighting units. Speaking in favor of women-in-land combat will be former U.S. Army helicopter pilot Amber Smith andKatherine Kidder of the Center for a New American Security. The program will take place on Wednesday, March 23, from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2255. Bring a friend or two -- the event includes a free Chick-Fil-A lunch! Just let the sponsors know you are coming by clicking here: RSVP: Women Fighting on the Front Lines We hope that this event will be the beginning of more discussions about the consequences of revoking women's exemption from direct ground combat. The Secretary of Defense has made it clear that minimally-qualified women will be eligible for direct ground combat assignments on the same involuntary basis as men. What will this mean to young women who want to serve their country but don't want to be treated like men in the combat arms? What does it mean for our culture and the relationships between men and women?  And most importantly, What are implications for combat effectiveness and national security? To learn more, please sign up and plan to attend this worthwhile program: RSVP: Women Fighting on the Front Lines

Senior Generals Tell Congress - Women Must Register for the Draft

First paragraph from Fox News:

The top Army and Marine Corps generals told senators Tuesday that it will take up to three years to fully integrate women into all combat jobs, adding that women also should have to register for the draft. (Emphasis mine)

There are those who say there will never be a draft. But the United States now is fighting in various parts of the world, in Iraq and Syria. The Russians have sliced a good peace of land from a neighboring country and fly aggressively near American planes. America just sent billions of dollars of large military equipmenet to various countries near Russia because they are afraid of the Russians. Who says there won't be fighting? And who says there won't be a draft?

China is expanding its control of land claimed by Japan. America is committed to defending Japan. Who says there won't be a war? Who says there won't be a draft?

ISIS is fighting in various countries. America is fighting them. Who says there won't be a draft? And if American woman are drafted to fight ISIS, who guarantees that ISIS will not capture an American woman? 

Let's just keep dreaming. It is nicer than knowing the truth. But when the truth comes, and you're not ready for it, what will you do then?

Women are Not Safe Around Men in College and the Military

The recent efforts of the American military to open combat to women is considered by some to be a a great step towards gender equality. However, the vast majority of women in the military, according to a study recently released by the Associate Press, are not interested in being in combat.  “The Army surveyed its nearly 170,000 women. Less than 8% of who responded said they wanted a combat job.” The Marine Corp did a study that showed that women do not have the physical strength and ability to stand the stress of true combat. What will happen when these women are turned loose to kill men who want to kill them? If all of this is true, that the Army women don’t want combat, and the physical realities revealed by the Marine Corp  study show that it is dangerous for a woman to be in combat, is this a victory for women or something else? And what happens when there is a war with ISIS, which is very likely, as American planes are fighting ISIS and some troops have been part of the fighting on the ground. What happens when women join these troops and ISIS captures one?

The Supreme Court in 1981 ruled in Rotsker vs Goldberg that women cannot be drafted because they are not accepted for combat. That was then. But now that women are accepted for combat, women will probably be drafted, and at least, forced to register for the draft. And if they register for the draft, and there is a draft, there is now no excuse for not drafting women, as both men and women are fully accepted in combat. What does this mean to me, a great-grandfather who has daughters, granddaughters, and great-granddaughters?

I consider mixing of the sexes especially before marriage a great disaster. Every woman has the right to escape sexual abuse. But when men and women mix, such as in colleges, men abuse women. The problem is known and to understand it a huge study has been made involving 150,000 students at 27 universities nationally. The Harvard Gazette of September 21, 2015 had a lengthy article where the President of Harvard Drew Faust, a woman who focused on the study of Harvard students, said the results were “deeply disturbing.” 72.7 percent of undergraduate women in Harvard reported an incident of harassment during their time at Harvard. Of the class of ’15 31% experienced unwanted sexual contact at Harvard. Ninety suffered unwanted penetration, or rape.

“Nationally, 6.5 percent of students reported some form of unwanted sexual contact, while 2.4 percent reported penetration or attempted penetration by force or incapacitation.” And “More than 150,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students at 27…universities across the country took part” in this survey. If so, 3,000 students were raped. And what happens when the men are not Harvard students but soldiers in combat where the biology boils?

 Each year, the Defense Department must submit to Congress the status of sexual abuse in the military. In Fiscal 2014 about half a million military members were asked to participate in the study of abuse, and 145,300 participated. (Footnote #5) There were 6,131 reports of sexual assault, which is about four percent. But note that page six footnote  8 says, “Sexual assault is an under-reported crime. This means the number of sexual assaults estimated to occur each year vastly outnumbers reports made to DoD authorities.” If so, the numbers of victims of sexual assault and rape derived from reports of victim's complaints are actually much higher than the reported total. If the reported total was four percent, and that was “vastly outnumbered” by the real victims, how many were the real victims? We are talking about a disaster in the military. Can a woman be forced by the draft to join the military? If so, the government is forcing rape, because the military will never guarantee a woman’s safety in the military if men are around her.

If the government forced women with a draft and there is sexual abuse or rape, the victim should sue the government, big time. Okay, so there won’t be money for gasoline for the tanks, but justice of some kind will be done, and maybe, the draft terminated for fiscal reasons!

Townhall - Don't Let Hillary Draft Your Daughter

Townhall Conservative Media 

Townhall | Columnists | Katie Kieffer

Don’t Let Hillary Draft Your Daughter

Katie Kieffer | Dec 28, 2015

For over 40 years, Hillary Clinton has been pushing to put women in combat and now she’s close to succeeding—whether women like it or not.

Your daughter or granddaughter could soon be compelled to register with the Selective Service at the age of 18 alongside all American males. Today, I’ll share what you need to know to confront Hillary and Obama’s unconstitutional and unscientific approach to fighting the phony War on Women and the real War on ISIS.

In 1975, at the age of 27, Hillary was the newly-married wife of Bill Clinton and a law school teacher when she claims to have been rejected by a Marine Corps recruiter because of her age and because “you're a woman.”

The New York Times reported in 1994 that Hillary: “said that ‘it was not an isolated situation’ for women to be turned away by military recruiters. And she lauded efforts to bring women into more aspects of military service.” Translation: Hillary thinks a woman’s place is on the front lines.

Despite the fact that she was zealously anti-war as a college student, Hillary continues to bemoan the fact that the Marines shunned her. You begin to suspect that her story is a political ploy to make female voters think she is pro-woman.

Your Daughter’s Draft Threat

There is a very real chance that your daughter or granddaughter would face an equal chance of being drafted as your son and grandson if Hillary becomes president. Besides repeatedly mentioning her Marine rejection story, Clinton persists in praising President Obama—whose administration is pushing hard to put more women on the front lines.

“I'd give him an 'A,’” Hillary has said of Obama’s job performance. She recently praised the president as a global “leader” on foreign policy who has her “support” to keep American forces in Afghanistan for what now looks like perpetuity.

Obama’s Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is predicted to make a decision in January that would force the Marines to allow women in all combat roles. Far from empowering women, this move is scientifically proven to hurt women.

Ashton Carter, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share one thing in common: they never served in the military. This may be why they dismiss the Marine Corps’ 9-month study on the impact of expanding the role of women in combat. The study’s results are eye-opening. In nearly three quarters of events (69%), all-male squads outperformed mixed gender squads. Negotiating obstacles, casualty evacuations and long hikes under load were exponentially more difficult for women.

I interviewed a recently-retired Navy SEAL who told me that he would be fine with women joining the SEALs on one key condition: that they be able to pass the exact same tests as the men. Realistically, there is no way to get droves of women to become Rangers, Marines or the SEALS unless we lower our standards.

Women have many wonderful abilities that men lack, including the ability to give birth. But females in the military have around a third less muscle mass and at least ten percent more body fat than the males, according to recent Army data. Men are significantly faster and stronger than women, shows military study after study.

40 percent more women than men who serve in the military today are hospitalized (even accounting for pregnancy). Expect this percentage to skyrocket if more women assume Marine combat roles.

Much ado was made when three women managed to pass Ranger School on their third try. Countless more men—including my own cousin—passed Ranger School without first failing to pass twice. No one in the national media noticed.

We wouldn’t ask golf star Jordan Spieth to miss a few putts so as to “equalize” the playing field in a hypothetical co-ed Masters Tournament. Why support poor sportsmanship when the stakes are far higher than a green jacket?

We’re at war with ISIS, folks. Thugs who enjoy murdering innocent people via explosive necklace; beheading and suicide bombing. It is unethical to push women into the toughest Marine combat roles knowing they have a 69% greater chance of failure than men. Because, in war, mission failure often means death.

Young Women Say: I Don’t Want To Fight

Harvard just released its 2015 poll of Millennial views on foreign policy and the results show that 85% of young people, men and women both, have no interest in enlisting. 62% of Millennials said they would “definitely not” and 23% said they would “probably not” join the military to combat ISIS.

Hillary has no fear of being drafted herself. Nor need she worry about her 35-year-old pregnant daughter Chelsea being drafted if women are forced to register with the Selective Service. And with a draft-dodging expert like Slick Willie for a grandfather, Hillary knows she need not worry about her granddaughter Charlotte.

Your daughters and granddaughters are at risk of being drafted in a war against ISIS that only 4% of young people tell Harvard researchers they would “definitely” consider fighting.

It would be demeaning to both men and women; a waste of taxpayer dollars; and a national security risk to give women shortcuts to the front lines in the name of “gender equality.” Or, in the words of the Marine Corps study: “a prescription for failure.”

Share this column, educate Millennials about the Clintons’ views on foreign policy, and urge Defense Secretary Carter to side with the Marines and keep harsh combat roles closed to women. Don’t let Hillary have the opportunity to draft your daughter as she moves up the political ladder.

Why Woman Should not be in Combat - Elaine Donnelly CMR

ELAINE DONNELLY Center for Military Readiness 2016 Message from Elaine  . . .   December 29, 2015 TO: Rabbi David Eidensohn       Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,     At this time last year I predicted that 2015 would be a difficult year for our military. Sure enough, on December 3, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter grimly announced that he was ignoring the best professional advice of the U.S. Marine Corps on an issue that will affect countless military women, men, and even unsuspecting civilian women of Selective Service registration age.   For months, the Department of Defense imposed gag orders and secrecy to accomplish "gender diversity" in the combat arms without congressional oversight or interference. Despite those efforts to hide the truth, the Center for Military Readiness stepped up to do the work that Congress and larger organizations failed to do.   Time and again, with your help, CMR kept obtaining, reporting, and analyzing the extensive new research on women in direct ground combat.   As you may know, University of Pittsburgh experts working with the U.S. Marine Corps found that physical differences between men and women do matter in the crucible of direct ground combat.  Scientific measurements found that in field tests, gender-mixed task force teams failed 69% of the time.  Both Marine and Army Medical Command reports also confirmed that women suffered injuries at least twice as often as men - more in units that routinely carry heavy loads on the way to find and fight the enemy.  Disproportionate levels of fatigue affected speed and even marksmanship - factors that are essential for what the Marines called "survivability and lethality" in direct ground combat.  You can see partial results of CMR's work in this long list of articles and commentaries - many of which highlighted facts that CMR was first to report and analyze in 2015: Women in Ground Combat - Part 8 ˗ Definitive Research and Commentaries.   Additional reports and documents, which the Pentagon held back for months, are only now coming to light. In a year when Americans will elect a new Commander-in-Chief, CMR's work will be more important than ever.   If you would like CMR to continue our work, please consider sending a year-end contribution and be as generous as you can. Your tax-deductible donation of any amount − $25, $50, $100, $500, $1,000, or more − will help CMR to pay our bills, replenish our funds, and prepare for significant challenges ahead.   You can send your tax-deductible contribution before the year's end by clicking on the electronic system in the box below, or by downloading this print form for sending in the December mail to our address, which is: CMR, P. O. Box 51600, Livonia, MI 48151   To thank you for a contribution of $100 or more, we will send you a bound copy of the two-section, 36-page Interim CMR Report ˗ Part II, summarized in this article:   Obama Administration Ignores Sound Military Advice on Women in Direct Ground Combat

Will Women be Drafted? - A Lengthy Document from the Select Service Administration

Will Women be Drafted?

 Here are the Federal documents that clearly point to the idea that within the coming year or so women will likely be eligible for the draft. Now that women have been cleared by the armed forced to perform regular combat, there is no essential difference any longer between men and women. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the only reason women do not have to be drafted is because they are not used for combat. Now that women are used officially by the military for combat, it would seem that women will be drafted.

We oppose women in the draft or even to register for the draft because women in college and the army away from home are often molested, as we provide the sources from Harvard University and the Federal Government elsewhere on this blog. Orthodox Jewish Law strongly condemns women with men anywhere, surely the military, which is known to produce much sexual abuse for women.

 Here is an official document from the Federal Select Service Administration that handles draft and register for the draft.

Document from the Select Service Administration about Women in the Draft

(Some emphasis added for crucial statements)

Backgrounder: Women and the Draft

While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Those women who served in the past and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers all volunteered for military service.

The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed.

After America’s draft ended in 1973, the Selective Service System was maintained in a standby status, just in case a return to conscription became necessary during a crisis. After March 29, 1975, men no longer had to register and Selective Service was placed in "deep standby." But then, in 1980, President Carter reactivated the registration process for men in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in reaction to reports that the standby Selective Service System might not meet wartime requirements for rapid manpower expansion of the active and reserve forces.

Although the specter of a future draft remained solely the concern of young men, discussions in Congress and the Administration about registering and conscripting women periodically took place. Section 811 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-107, Nov. 9, 1979) required the President to send to the Congress a plan for reforming the law providing for the registration and induction of persons for military service. The President sent his recommendations for Selective Service reform in a report dated Feb. 11, 1980. As noted above, the President requested reactivation of registration for men. But another recommendation to the Congress was that the act be amended to provide presidential authority to register, classify, and examine women for service in the Armed Forces. If granted, the President would exercise this authority when the Congress authorized the conscription of men. Although women would become part of the personnel inventory for the services to draw from, their use would be based on the needs and missions of the services. Department of Defense (DoD) policy, which was not to assign women to positions involving close combat, would continue. In response to these recommendations, the Congress agreed to reactivate registration, but declined to amend the act to permit the registration of women. In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DoD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women.

The exclusion of women from the registration process was challenged in the courts. A lawsuit brought by several men resulted in a 1980 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision that the MSSA’s gender-based discrimination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the District Court enjoined registration under the Act. Upon direct appeal, in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, ruling that there was no violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DoD’s policy that excluded women from combat. The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women.

In 1992, a Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces reexamined the issue of registration and conscription of women. In its November 1992 report, by a vote of 11 to 3, the Commission recommended that women not be required to register for or be subject to conscription. The Commission cited the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg upholding the exclusion of women from registration as the basis for its recommendation. The Commission also discussed enacting existing ground combat specialties exclusion policies into law to provide an additional barrier to the amendment of the MSSA to provide for the conscription of women. However, an appendix to its report suggested that public opinion was divided on the issue. The appendix, which included the results of a random telephone survey of 1,500 adults, showed that, in the event of a draft for a national emergency or threat of war (and assuming an ample pool of young men exists), 52 percent of respondents indicated women should be drafted, about 39 percent of respondents indicated women should not be drafted, and 10 percent responded they did not know.

In May 1994, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to update its mobilization requirements for the Selective Service System and, as a part of the effort, "continues to review the arguments for and against continuing to exclude women from registration now that they can be assigned to combat roles other than ground combat." In its subsequent report, the DoD position remained "that the restriction of females from assignments below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground, provides justification from exempting women from registration (and a draft) as set forth in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)." However, the report also recognized the vastly increased role being played by women in each of the Armed Services who, in Fiscal Year 1994, comprised 16 percent of recruits. "Because of this change in the makeup of the Armed Forces," the report observed, "much of the congressional debate which, in the court’s opinion, provided adequate congressional scrutiny of the issue...(in 1981) would be inappropriate today." While maintaining that it was not necessary to register or draft women, the DoD review concluded "the success of the military will increasingly depend upon the participation of women."

In 1998, at the request of U.S. Senator Charles Robb (D-VA), ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate Armed Services Committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) addressed a variety of questions related to gender equity in the military. Included was a budget and resource examination of the impact of requiring women to register with Selective Service. The GAO report* did not address the pros and cons regarding the exclusion of women from ground combat positions or from the Selective Service registration requirement, nor did it make any policy recommendations. Instead, GAO simply described the DoD position that there is no need to register women as "being consistent with its policy of restricting women from direct ground combat."On January 24, 2013, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members, following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Based on the American Forces Press Service’s news release, “Defense Department Expands Women’s Combat Role,” dated January 24, 2013, key statements are highlighted below:

The secretary announced that the service branches will continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. The change is intended to ensure that the best qualified and most capable service members, regardless of gender, are available to carry out the mission. Panetta added, “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed, color, gender or sexual orientation.”

The secretary directed the military services to undertake an evaluation of all occupational performance standards to ensure they are up to date and gender-neutral. Specialty schools will be included in the evaluation, a senior defense official said. … the entire process is to be completed by January 1, 2016.

Once the policy is fully implemented, military occupations will be closed to women only by exception, and only if approved by the defense secretary, a senior defense official said.

UPDATE:  Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”

As of December 3, 2015, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.

---

(Compiled and edited by The Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Selective Service System, December 2015.)

*Appendix I of the GAO report is entitled, "Historical Perspectives on Women and the Draft." It provides an excellent chronological summary about this issue and nearly all of it is incorporated, verbatim, in this paper.

---

Woman Must Not be Drafted;  Sexual Assault in the Military and at Harvard

Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn/845-578-1917/eidensohnd@gmail.com

An article on the Harvard University paper the Harvard Gazette, September 21, 2015, is about women in Harvard being sexually assaulted. The article was written by Christina Pazzanese Harvard Staff Writer and contains remarks by the President of Harvard Drew Faust. The purpose of this article here on this blog is to warn us about the contemporary strong Obama supported urge to get women in America drafted in the American army and be sent away to fight. Can we imagine how many of these women will suffer from such assaults? Here are the basic facts from Harvard. I say basic facts that they are true in the minimum, but they are a small fraction of the real amount, as we will quote from the official Federal Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, that any count of people complaining about being sexually assaulted is always a much smaller amount than the real amount. See Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military page 6 footnote 8. 

We begin with the basic facts discovered about Harvard girls being abused. Then we include the entire letter afterwards. Note that although sexual harassment is a problem, the crime of non-consensual penetration or attempt to do such is much worse. But to know as we quote below that 72.7 percent of Harvard undergraduate women report they were harassed at Harvard is shocking. 

 Quote from the article

 - Last April, the Harvard task force asked students to complete an online survey about sexual assault. Students were asked a series of questions about various kinds of sexual misconduct that they may have encountered while they were enrolled at the University, regardless of where or when the incident took place, or whether the perpetrator was part of the Harvard community. The survey focused on non-consensual sexual activity conducted through the use of physical force, incapacitation, or both.

The survey found that sexual harassment is a problem for women students all across the University, with 72.7 percent of undergraduate women reporting an incident of harassment during their time at Harvard.

Almost half of Harvard’s female graduate and professional School students reported being harassed, and 21.8 percent of these women said a faculty member had sexually harassed them.  Emphasis Mine. End quote.

 “Clearly, we must do more,” Faust wrote. “University leaders — starting with the president, the provost, and the deans — bear a critical part of the responsibility for shaping the climate and offering resources to prevent sexual assault and [to] respond when it does occur.” End quote. I feel this is a great mistake. Mixing young men and women in an environment filled with drinking and sex, filthy videos and reading material, is not conducive to the happiness of women who want to be left alone. If we don't get this straight, we miss the whole point. But of course, this is unthinkable because women must be men in today's secular world. But if they must be men and then must go into the army, what of the moral and religious and biblical women who believe that hanging out and talking a lot with men is wrong? Do they have rights as Americans, or should they leave the country or be put in jail? Again, the fact is that  never ever will young men and women living in dormitories filled with sexual arousal be free of forced sex.

 End of my remarks, Rabbi David Eidensohn. And beginning of the entire article from the Harvard Gazette Sept 21, 2015.

Harvard Gazette  -   September 21, 2015 |By Christina Pazzanese, Harvard Staff WriterPrevention of Sexual Assault – A Serious Problem in Harvard and Elsewhere By Christina Pazzanese, Harvard Staff Writer

In tandem with the release of findings from a new national survey of college and university students about sexual assault, the University’s Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault made Harvard’s data public Monday, including results that paint a disturbing picture of sexual misconduct here on campus.

In a 13-page letter to President Drew Faust, Task Force Chairman Steven E. Hyman said that the survey, which was administered to nearly 20,000 degree-seeking students enrolled at Harvard College, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), and the 10 professional Schools last spring, makes clear that sexual assault is “a serious and widespread problem that profoundly violates the values and undermines the educational goals of this University.”

Women at Harvard College appear especially vulnerable to sexual assault, the survey said. More than 60 percent of women in the College’s Class of ’15 responded to the survey. Of those, 31 percent said they had experienced some sort of unwanted sexual contact at Harvard. Ninety women characterized that contact as what the survey termed “nonconsensual completed or attempted penetration involving physical force, incapacitation or both,” the most serious category of misconduct. This group comprises 16 percent of female College seniors.

A total of 17.9 percent of undergraduate women who identified as Lesbian or Gay, Bisexual, Asexual, Questioning and Not Listed (LGBAQN) at Harvard reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual contact by force or incapacitation during the 2014-2015 academic year, the highest rate of all Harvard student cohorts. This contact ranged from completed or attempted penetration to sexual touching. Undergraduate heterosexual women were the next-highest group with 12 percent reporting such contact, and LGBAQN undergraduate men reported 10.9 percent.

The students least likely to experience unwanted sexual contact were heterosexual men at GSAS and the professional Schools, at 0.8 percent. Just 2.7 percent of undergraduate heterosexual men and 2.9 percent of LGBAQN men at GSAS or at the professional Schools said they had any nonconsensual contact.

Faust finds results “deeply disturbing”

In an email to students, faculty, and staff, Faust called the survey results “deeply disturbing” and said the findings reinforce the “alarming frequency” with which Harvard students experience sexual assault, and she called for a Monday evening meeting to discuss the results with them.

“All of us share the obligation to create and sustain a community of which we can all be proud, a community whose bedrock is mutual respect and concern for one another. Sexual assault is intolerable, and we owe it to one another to confront it openly, purposefully and effectively,” Faust wrote.

The survey was part of an effort led by the Association of American Universities (AAU), a consortium of 62 research universities, to better understand the nature and pervasiveness of sexual assault, harassment, and other misconduct on college campuses. More than 150,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students at 27 private and public research universities across the country took part, making it one of the largest surveys of its kind.

Overall, 19.3 percent of eligible students responded to the AAU survey, though rates at each institution varied depending on the type of school and size. At Harvard, 53 percent of the eligible students participated, the highest rate among the universities surveyed. Faust said she took that as a “positive sign” that students recognize sexual assault as a serious issue.

Harvard fared slightly better than the averages reported by students in the national survey aggregate. Four percent of Harvard students surveyed said they had at least one incident of nonconsensual sexual contact last year. Additionally, 1.4 percent said the contact was completed, or involved attempted penetration by use of force, incapacitation, or both. Nationally, 6.5 percent of students reported some form of unwanted of sexual contact, while 2.4 percent reported penetration or attempted penetration by force or incapacitation.

Last April, the Harvard task force asked students to complete an online survey about sexual assault. Students were asked a series of questions about various kinds of sexual misconduct that they may have encountered while they were enrolled at the University, regardless of where or when the incident took place, or whether the perpetrator was part of the Harvard community. The survey focused on nonconsensual sexual activity conducted through the use of physical force, incapacitation, or both.

The survey found that sexual harassment is a problem for women students all across the University, with 72.7 percent of undergraduate women reporting an incident of harassment during their time at Harvard, while fewer than 62 percent of undergraduate women in the broader 27-school survey reported such incidents.

Almost half of Harvard’s female graduate and professional School students reported being harassed, and 21.8 percent of these women said a faculty member had sexually harassed them.

“We must commit ourselves to being a better community than the one the survey portrays,” Faust wrote in her email. “It is up to all of us to ensure that Harvard is a realization of our ideals, not our fears.”

Also in response, Rakesh Khurana, Danoff Dean of Harvard College, announced that the College would host three town-hall style discussions with staff from the Office of Sexual Assault and Prevention this week.

“We have it in our power to make Harvard better,” he said in a message to students. “This is a moment for all of us to take stock of what we stand for as a community” and to make the necessary changes to better Harvard and the world.

At a 90-minute meeting Monday evening before an overflow crowd at the Science Center, Faust and Khurana answered questions from students following a presentation of the survey results by David Laibson ’88, the Robert I. Goldman Professor of Economics. Laibson, who serves on the task force and chairs the Economics Department, was closely involved in the survey’s design and analysis.

As an institution of higher education, learning from these survey results “is something we are especially equipped to do,” Faust said.

“We want to use those skills to figure out how can we combat this, how can we make it stop, and how can we help the individuals who are trapped in these terrible, terrible circumstances from ever having to have those kinds of things happen to them again. How can we help future students not have to confront the same realities?” she said. “Let’s use every tool that we have to make this a better place.”

Students attending the community meeting asked that the University offer more opportunities to gather in both large and smaller groups not just to discuss their views about sexual assault policy initiatives and programs, but also to comfortably share their experiences in the hopes of learning more about the underlying issues that contribute to such traumatic incidents. Many expressed support for better and faster access to mental health services and the creation of “safe spaces” so that final clubs events were not a focus of undergraduate social life.

Noting the essential value that students derive by socializing and learning from Harvard’s diverse student population, Khurana appeared to signal that single-sex entities like final clubs may face greater scrutiny in the near future.

“Any organization that attaches itself, recognized or unrecognized, to Harvard, recruits from Harvard students and enjoys any sort of status by being affiliated with the College has to be in synchronization with the mission of the College,” he said.

Alcohol use a major risk factor

Unsurprisingly, the use of drugs and alcohol as a “tactic” or precursor to sexual assault on college campuses accounts for a “significant” percentage of reported incidents, the AAU survey found.

At Harvard, when students were asked if anyone had been consuming alcohol before an incident of completed or attempted penetration when incapacitation was a factor, 89 percent of respondents said they had been drinking, while 79 percent said the perpetrator had been drinking.

“The percent of alcohol is so high that prevention efforts are not likely to succeed if we do not, as part of our final report, suggest approaches to decreasing the harm associated with student drinking,” Hyman wrote in his letter to Faust.

More than 75 percent of Harvard College women reported the assaults took place in student Houses, while at least 15 percent said they occurred at what the survey categorized as “single-sex organizations that were not fraternities or sororities,” a category that most closely aligns at Harvard with the non-affiliated final clubs.

Not serious enough to report?

One reason why reliable information about the pervasiveness of sexual assault on college campuses is so hard to come by, analysts say, is that, historically, few students choose to report such incidents to someone in law enforcement, at a university, or at another organization. The AAU survey bears out this unsettling truth. Just 5 to 28 percent of students nationally said they had reported an incident, depending on the type of misconduct. Among those who said they did not report an incident, the most common reason given was a belief that it was not serious enough to warrant action. Other explanations included that the student felt “too embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult” to report the incident, or that she or he “did not think anything would be done about it.”

On that score, Harvard appears no different. Here, 80 percent of female undergraduates who said they had been penetrated as a result of incapacitation did not formally report the assault, while 69 percent who said they were penetrated by the use of physical force did not report the instances.

Fifty-four percent of Harvard student respondents who said they “had seen or heard someone acting in a sexually violent or harassing way” did nothing to intervene. A full 80 percent who said they had seen a “drunk person heading for a sexual encounter” indicated that they did not take any action.

Hyman said the survey results are “entirely congruent” with testimony that the task force has heard since its formation. “The fact that Harvard data is quite similar to that of other private universities within the AAU gives little comfort,” he wrote to Faust. Noting the “deeply ingrained” nature of sexual assault, Hyman wrote, “It reminds us that we cannot simply make and implement a series of recommendations and consider that we have done our work.”

Messages on assault not being received

Despite initiating several efforts in the last two years to better confront sexual assault on campus, such as the adoption of the University-wide Title IX policy, the establishment of the Office for Dispute Resolution to investigate misconduct, and the addition of 50 Title IX coordinators to work across Harvard on such issues, many students said they are not well-informed about where to get support, how to report sexual assault or misconduct, how the University defines sexual assault and misconduct, or what happens after a report is made.

Just 24 percent of Harvard students said they were very or extremely knowledgeable about where to go for help, and only 20 percent said they were very or extremely knowledgeable about where to report an incident. When asked what happens after a report is filed, 82 percent said the process wasn’t entirely clear to them, and only 15 percent said they fully understood what constitutes sexual assault or misconduct at Harvard. In all four areas, the percentage of Harvard students who said they were very or extremely knowledgeable was consistently smaller than the national survey average.

“Clearly, we must do more,” Faust wrote. “University leaders — starting with the president, the provost, and the deans — bear a critical part of the responsibility for shaping the climate and offering resources to prevent sexual assault and [to] respond when it does occur.”

To that end, Faust has asked the deans from each School to prepare “school-specific plans” that begin to facilitate community discussion, engagement, and action surrounding the survey findings.

The task force and the University’s Institutional Research Office will further analyze the survey data to better understand the full results. In January, the task force will submit a report and make recommendations to Faust.

Among the areas identified as meriting further scrutiny: the higher rate of sexual assaults reported by LGBAQN-identifying students; the alarming frequency of alcohol as a factor in such assaults; the specific campus locations where incidents most often take place; and the low percentage of students, particularly undergraduates, who say they know where to get help or feel confident that the University will respond to their needs.

Confidence in the University’s ability to handle sexual assault cases vigorously and appropriately varies widely.

Although 61 percent of all Harvard students think the University is “very or extremely likely” to take a report of sexual assault seriously, only 43 percent of female undergraduates at the College and at the Division of Continuing Education said they feel that way.

Asked if they thought the University would conduct a fair investigation of any reported assault claim, 41 percent of Harvard students said they were only “somewhat” certain officials would do the job properly, while 29 percent said the process was “very” likely to be fair. Female undergraduates were a bit more skeptical, with 45 percent saying a fair investigation was “somewhat” likely.

But when asked how likely University officials were to take action against an offender, 46 percent of female undergraduates said they had little or no confidence that they would. In addition, 84 percent expressed some doubt any action would be taken. Overall, 68 percent of Harvard students surveyed were dubious of follow-through against offenders.

The national survey was designed to provide university communities, federal policymakers, and educational researchers with greater insight into the scope, frequency, and nature of sexual assault and misconduct on American college campuses, the AAU said in a press statement issued Monday.

The survey results come amid growing pressure on colleges and universities from the Obama administration, Congress, the Department of Education, and activists to codify and make transparent their procedures for investigating, disciplining, and reporting sexual assault cases, as well as the case outcomes.

Other participating Ivy League schools included Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania and Yale University. Public universities involved included the University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Texas at Austin, among others.