Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feminist: Women in Combat Can Use Birth Control to ‘Eliminate Their Periods'
CNS News ^ | 2/22/2013 | Penny Starr

Posted on 02/24/2013 5:39:59 AM PST by IbJensen

(Kayla Williams, a former sergeant with the U.S. Army, spoke in favor of the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat units on Feb. 21, 2013 at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.)

(CNSNews.com) - At an event to discuss the merits of lifting the ban on women serving in combat units in the U.S. military, a retired Army sergeant said that hygiene issues are not a problem, including menstrual cycles, which she said can be regulated or eliminated by using birth control.

“Women can use hormonal birth control to regulate or eliminate their periods during deployment,” Kayla Williams said in remarks on Thursday at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C. “It’s just not that hard.”

Williams and Michael Breen, a former U.S. Army officer and executive director of the Truman National Security Project, argued that the new policy would strengthen the military and that hygiene and privacy were not legitimate reasons to oppose the change.

“What about the hygiene issue?” Williams said. “Look, frankly I don’t even know what that means.

“People say this in this hushed tone as if the vagina is a secret,” Williams said. “If women died without access to indoor plumbing, the human species would not have survived long enough to develop showers.”

Williams said the military already has equipment designed to make hygiene easier for women in the field, including the female urinary device, or FUD, that allows women to urinate while standing or void into a bottle.

Michael Breen, a former U.S. Army officer, spoke in favor of the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat units on Feb. 21, 2013 at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Breen said privacy concerns don’t really exist in combat scenarios.

“My own experience in combat with a bunch of different units tells me that all of these worries for guys go out the window, basically, as soon as you are in an environment like that,” Breen said. “You just stop caring. And I realize that that may be difficult to understand. This is an environment where concerns like who sees who go to the bathroom in the field. This is just not at the top of your mind.

“Believe me,” Breen said. “You’re looking for sleep. You’re looking for food. You’re trying not to get your head blown off.”

Privacy was a concern, however, when the Defense Department issued a memorandum on Jan. 13, 1994, which ruled that “women shall be excluded from units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.”

The memo went on to list the restrictions, including the need for privacy and skills “where job-related requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women Service members.”

The fact that women would be required to spend long periods of time in the field with men was also cited as a reason for women not to serve in combat units.

Two times in the memo it is stated that this ban would be “expanding opportunities for women” by more clearly defining combat units as the one area where females could not serve.

In a press release distributed at the event, the lifting of the combat exclusion rule is described as a decision that “brings policy in line with reality.”

The press release states that more than 280,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some 150 women killed while serving and more than 800 who received the Purple Heart for being wounded while deployed.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: womeninmilitary
Vido at link.

So a women goes into a combat unit, takes birth control and hormones to regulate her period. Spends two or three years and then files for a disability because of the effects the birth control and hormones had on her. Good deal!

1 posted on 02/24/2013 5:40:04 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
They can use Helen Thomas make-up tips for birth control also...
2 posted on 02/24/2013 5:44:06 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

And create further medical problems for the taxpayers to fund.


3 posted on 02/24/2013 5:45:37 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Not every woman can tolerate every single form of birth control. Many of them go on this stuff and come whining back that it causes them too much nausea, headaches, or irregular bleeding and spotting and DEMAND other forms of BC.

But, I guess our so-called political “experts” know everything there is to know about healthcare also ....so we should just shut up and listen to them. :rollseyes:


4 posted on 02/24/2013 5:47:09 AM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

They can BE men.


5 posted on 02/24/2013 5:49:30 AM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

How did Kayla Williams become an expert on battlefield conditions? Where has she fought?


6 posted on 02/24/2013 5:50:04 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (Soon the "invisible hand" will press the economic "reset" button.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Maybe the Army could brainwash male soldiers “Shallow Hal” style into to seeing beautiful women as Helen Thomas look alikes.


7 posted on 02/24/2013 5:50:17 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Interesting, I’ve never heard of birth control that eliminates a woman’s period, just ovulation.

Well anyway, long term use of such a method must be extremely dangerous to the woman’s health. Yikes....


8 posted on 02/24/2013 5:50:51 AM PST by alice_in_bubbaland (When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes mandatory- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I am not politically correct.

Women are weaker than men, physically and emotionally, and should not be in combat. Yeah, I know, go find me that one woman who is 5’11”, 190 and can do more physically than a 5’8”, 160lb man. I’ll show you 10,000 men who can do more than her.

The US military is not a social experiment. It is the defender of our country.


9 posted on 02/24/2013 5:51:10 AM PST by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

No front-line sex babies!


10 posted on 02/24/2013 5:53:08 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland

Yeah, quite a few have come out over the last decade or so; women can avoid cycles for months on end. Fascinatingly, those same controls have also suffered some class-action suits around blood clots, etc. But, Dr’s claim it isn’t necessary for a woman to have a monthly cycle, perfectly harmless to suppress them.


11 posted on 02/24/2013 5:54:19 AM PST by ican'tbelieveit (School is prison for children who have commited the crime of being born. (attr: St_Thomas_Aquinas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

How do they propose to make up for the difference in physical strength? Steroids? They do not care for women or our troops, just grinding everything down until all is ‘equal’.


12 posted on 02/24/2013 5:54:38 AM PST by jmcenanly ("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

just get that addadicktome you’ve been hankerin’ for, there Maxine.


13 posted on 02/24/2013 5:54:53 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Liberal moonbats are whacked. Just why do these asshats feel they must project the sick wanderings of their abnormal minds onto society? Liberals...face it...you are whacked.


14 posted on 02/24/2013 5:59:01 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Oh, swell. Then you have a lot of female soldiers who are constantly depressed and overweight. Just great.


15 posted on 02/24/2013 6:00:52 AM PST by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Probably won’t be an issue. I figure most women will go in for the training and then just get pregnant before being deployed anyway


16 posted on 02/24/2013 6:01:32 AM PST by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Wow, can this be done *without* combat? Just askin’, no reason.

Thanks IbJensen.


17 posted on 02/24/2013 6:06:04 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hal ogen
they are reasons to push all this crap on us. they are not whacked...they are trying to tear down a nation. Read This:

The Communist Takeover of America: 45 Declared Goals (Congressional Record, 1963)

18 posted on 02/24/2013 6:06:46 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

[...female urinary device, or FUD...]

Now they did it, it won’t be long before a lesbian activist appears before a Senate committee demanding their FUDS.


19 posted on 02/24/2013 6:12:03 AM PST by RetSignman ("...a Republic if you can keep it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

Thanks for the info.

Who knows what the long term effects are. I wouldn’t want my daughter or anyone’s daughter being the guinea pigs.

That said, woman are just built differently. Their upper body strength is less than a mans. Can you imagine a woman trying to carry a fellow soldier out from the line of fire?

This administration is hell bent on destroying this Nation.


20 posted on 02/24/2013 6:12:03 AM PST by alice_in_bubbaland (When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes mandatory- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
“It’s just not that hard.”

That's what she said.

21 posted on 02/24/2013 6:15:16 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

It’s Sunday morning. This is your third post of HT this morning. I just watched a beautiful sunrise but now feel the need for eye bleach which will rinse out your posts of HT but also the beautiful sunrise.


22 posted on 02/24/2013 6:16:29 AM PST by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I guess we can assume that the hormone pills will be issued with their C rations and if they are captured the enemy will supply them.

I agree that most guys arent interested in watching a woman pee, but exposure of that Vagina we all know about does give them some horny ideas once in a while.


23 posted on 02/24/2013 6:32:22 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Fred On Everything - Women In Combat

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993):

"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."

Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:

"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."

Also from the Commission's report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"

From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:

(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.

Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.


24 posted on 02/24/2013 6:33:22 AM PST by Iron Munro (I miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Should read, “The democrat party takeover of America”
Read through the list and it describes what the rats have been doing since the 60’s.


25 posted on 02/24/2013 6:39:47 AM PST by Texas resident (I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Why not slice their breasts off too and while their at it give them male hormones and have a penis sewn on.

Then we can teach male soldiers to be nurturers.

Utter madness.


26 posted on 02/24/2013 6:43:17 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Tell me it wont happen.
27 posted on 02/24/2013 6:46:41 AM PST by Delta 21 (Oh Crap !! Did I say that out loud ??!??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
So, when is the imperial edict going to come down that women have to register with the selective service, or they won't get any federal benefits?
28 posted on 02/24/2013 6:49:48 AM PST by Traveler59 ( Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

“4.8 inches shorter and 31.7 pounds lighter...”

Advantage females in combat! Smaller target, lighter and more easily removed from battle field after becoming casualties. Can carry 5 women off in chopper only capable or carrying 4 men.

And their junk is not out in the way when one needs a quick upper thigh tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

And they do not eat as much and take unnecessary risks.


29 posted on 02/24/2013 6:51:44 AM PST by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

I’d present the feminist argument against you, except their current argument is that women are so weak and frail and unable to fend for themselves that they need the mostly-male legislators in our federal government to pass special laws that provide special protection for women.

Because everybody apparently knows that a woman needs a good man to keep her safe. At least when we are talking about violence against women.

Not a gun, mind you. It would be too dangerous to let a woman have a gun, they should use whistles. And go to college, where there isn’t any real rape, just “date rape” which every good democrat knows doesn’t really count.


30 posted on 02/24/2013 6:57:58 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

AFAIK it was mandatory in former Soviet and Red German military since 1960s. Contributed to their birth and cancer rates greatly.


31 posted on 02/24/2013 7:06:51 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
Oh, swell. Then you have a lot of female soldiers who are constantly depressed and overweight. Just great.

And heavily armed...

32 posted on 02/24/2013 7:12:33 AM PST by Bernard (John Kerry as SOS will be the almost-perfect symbol of the Obama administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The Liberals. Feminists, and Commie wacks (but, I repeat myself) have found the key to destroying our military and they are steaming on FULL SPEED AHEAD!

There is nothing quite like taking a military that is nearly 100% effective and turning it into one that is, oh, roughly 70% effective, if that.

No doubt the Chinese and the Islamists are licking their chops imagining the wealth and pleasures which await them when they finally crush our economy and destroy our military and take over a pussyfied America. The first thing they will do after purging our population of all but their necessary remaining slaves will be to drill and frack our immense riches of oil and gas for their economies.

33 posted on 02/24/2013 7:14:07 AM PST by Gritty (The 2nd Amendment protects the right to shoot tyrants effectively, not deer-Judge A. Napolitano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
How did Kayla Williams become an expert on battlefield conditions? Where has she fought?

The killing fields of liberal think tank forums?
34 posted on 02/24/2013 7:16:04 AM PST by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland

In the 70s, the hardcore lesbo feminists were pushing “menstrual extraction,” some horrible act that terminated a woman’s period. These women are crazy and our army is now officially CRAZY.


35 posted on 02/24/2013 7:23:37 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland

In the 70s, the hardcore lesbo feminists were pushing “menstrual extraction,” some horrible act that terminated a woman’s period. These women are crazy and our army is now officially CRAZY.


36 posted on 02/24/2013 7:24:37 AM PST by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

It’s crazinesss, but it’s not the Army’s idea. The Army doesn’t want this.

They must follow the orders of their civilian bosses and the CIC, who, during Clinton’s term, Clinton, being the CIC, was a guy who could have adulterous relations in his office.

Any military maember is rightfully fired-at least- for doing so.

WE citizens just really forget about the chain of command.

Have a confidential chat with any army recruit or officer about this. You’ll see it’s not the Army who is crazy.


37 posted on 02/24/2013 7:32:42 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: urbanpovertylawcenter
Re: “their junk is not in the way..”, can fit more casualties on a chopper...

These are atrocious substitutes for the physical strength and stamina needed in battle and which women lack. The whole idea of women in combat is part of the anti-America, anti-God evil of the Left. Leftists seek to de-humanize by denying God-given differences, while undermining national defense.

38 posted on 02/24/2013 7:36:00 AM PST by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

If women can be in the Infantry, then why should they be treated like second-class citizens by the Selective Service? All women should be forced to register with the Selective Service. We should also apply the principles of Affirmative Action in this matter. In the draft, women should receive preferential treatment and automatically receive higher draft numbers. The Infantry should be at least 60% female to correct the injustice that women have been forced to endure by not getting shot in the head. And no exemptions for pregnancy or children. If Uncle Sam wanted you to have a child, he would have issued you one. It is time that we men stood back and let the women enjoy all the glamour, high pay and special privileges that the Infantry provides. Just remember ladies, when that bayonet rips open your guts to be sure and thank the Democrats. You keep voting for them.


39 posted on 02/24/2013 7:59:22 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Every point she makes is a straw man.


40 posted on 02/24/2013 8:01:30 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Thought Puzzle: Describe Islam without using the phrase "mental disorder" more than four times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

She’s cut from the Pelosi stamp, isn’t she? I hate her from her face alone, so immature of me.

I’d say I’m a feminist in some respects, but the point having a military is to win wars, or be so intimidating that wars don’t happen, and women are NOT a battlefield asset.


41 posted on 02/24/2013 8:33:42 AM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

The vast majority of women are ill-suited for combat.

Many men are also ill-suited for combat.

Only the fittest in mind and body should be combat soldiers.

No person or group of persons that harm combat efficiency should be in a fighting force, the reason why is meaningless.

Killing people and breaking stuff should be the only objective...war really is hell.


42 posted on 02/24/2013 9:28:21 AM PST by Bobalu (It is not obama we are fighting, it is the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

Physically weaker? Absolutely—and very nearly universally!

Emotionally? I’m not so sure. I’d say in a lot of ways men and women are emotionally ‘differently abled’. E.g., I bet women on average have a much easier time with the sight of blood and are slower to reach the breaking point on violent anger, though they probably cry more readily than men, again, on average.


43 posted on 02/24/2013 9:54:32 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson