Female military members sue to serve in combat

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Four female service members filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, hoping the move will add pressure to drop the policy just as officials are gauging the effect that lifting the prohibition will have on morale.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, is the second one this year over the 1994 rule that bars women from being assigned to ground combat units, which are smaller and considered more dangerous since they are often in battle for longer periods.
The legal effort comes less than a year after the ban on gays serving openly was lifted and as officials are surveying Marines about whether women would be a distraction in ground combat units.
"I'm trying to get rid of the ban with a sharp poke," said U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, who was among the plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit and was injured in 2007 when her Humvee ran over an improvised explosive device in Iraq.
Hunt and the other three women said the policy unfairly blocks them from promotions and other advancements open to men in combat. Three of the women are in the reserves. A fourth, Marine Corp Lt. Colleen Farrell, leaves active duty this week.
Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. The lawsuit alleges that women are barred from 238,000 positions across the Armed Forces.
At a Washington, D.C., news conference, Pentagon press secretary George Little said the Defense Department was making strides in allowing more women to experience combat. He said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has opened about 14,500 combat positions to women.
"And he has directed the services to explore the possibility of opening additional roles for women in the military," Little said. "His record is very strong on this issue."
American Civil Liberties Union Ariela Migdal, who represents the four women, said Panetta's actions weren't enough. She called for an end to the combat ban. "These tweaks and minor changes on the margins do a disservice to all the women who serve," she said.
"It falls short," she said. "It is not enough."
Marine Corps Capt. Zoe Bedell said she left active duty, in large part, because of the combat exclusion policy. Bedell said she was frustrated that her advancement in the Marines was blocked by her inability to serve directly in combat units.
"The military is the last place where you are allowed to be discriminated against because of you gender," she said.
Bedell said the blurred front lines of modern warfare, with suicide bombs and sniper attacks, have put more and more women in combat situations.
More than 144 female troops have been killed and more than 860 have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began, according to Pentagon statistics. Roughly 20,000 of the 205,000 service members currently serving in Afghanistan are women.
Military leaders say they want to make sure lifting gender-based barriers would not disrupt the cohesion of the smaller combat ground units and military operations.
The Marine Corps' top leader, Gen. James Amos, ordered a survey of 53,000 troops to get their views, including whether they believe women in those units would distract male Marines from doing their jobs. The results have not been released yet.
The lawsuit alleges the ban violates constitutional female service members' equal rights. "As a direct result of this policy," the lawsuit states, "women - as a class and solely because of their gender - are barred from entire career fields.
The lawsuit also alleges that women are already serving unofficially in combat units.
Air National Guard Major Mary Jennings Hegar sustained shrapnel wounds in 2009 when she exchanged fire on the ground in Afghanistan after her Medevac helicopter was shot down. Both she and Hunt received Purple Heart medals for their injuries.
The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, is the second one this year over the 1994 rule that bars women from being assigned to ground combat units, which are smaller and considered more dangerous since they are often in battle for longer periods.
The legal effort comes less than a year after the ban on gays serving openly was lifted and as officials are surveying Marines about whether women would be a distraction in ground combat units.
"I'm trying to get rid of the ban with a sharp poke," said U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, who was among the plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit and was injured in 2007 when her Humvee ran over an improvised explosive device in Iraq.
Hunt and the other three women said the policy unfairly blocks them from promotions and other advancements open to men in combat. Three of the women are in the reserves. A fourth, Marine Corp Lt. Colleen Farrell, leaves active duty this week.
Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. The lawsuit alleges that women are barred from 238,000 positions across the Armed Forces.
At a Washington, D.C., news conference, Pentagon press secretary George Little said the Defense Department was making strides in allowing more women to experience combat. He said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has opened about 14,500 combat positions to women.
"And he has directed the services to explore the possibility of opening additional roles for women in the military," Little said. "His record is very strong on this issue."
American Civil Liberties Union Ariela Migdal, who represents the four women, said Panetta's actions weren't enough. She called for an end to the combat ban. "These tweaks and minor changes on the margins do a disservice to all the women who serve," she said.
"It falls short," she said. "It is not enough."
Marine Corps Capt. Zoe Bedell said she left active duty, in large part, because of the combat exclusion policy. Bedell said she was frustrated that her advancement in the Marines was blocked by her inability to serve directly in combat units.
"The military is the last place where you are allowed to be discriminated against because of you gender," she said.
Bedell said the blurred front lines of modern warfare, with suicide bombs and sniper attacks, have put more and more women in combat situations.
More than 144 female troops have been killed and more than 860 have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began, according to Pentagon statistics. Roughly 20,000 of the 205,000 service members currently serving in Afghanistan are women.
Military leaders say they want to make sure lifting gender-based barriers would not disrupt the cohesion of the smaller combat ground units and military operations.
The Marine Corps' top leader, Gen. James Amos, ordered a survey of 53,000 troops to get their views, including whether they believe women in those units would distract male Marines from doing their jobs. The results have not been released yet.
The lawsuit alleges the ban violates constitutional female service members' equal rights. "As a direct result of this policy," the lawsuit states, "women - as a class and solely because of their gender - are barred from entire career fields.
The lawsuit also alleges that women are already serving unofficially in combat units.
Air National Guard Major Mary Jennings Hegar sustained shrapnel wounds in 2009 when she exchanged fire on the ground in Afghanistan after her Medevac helicopter was shot down. Both she and Hunt received Purple Heart medals for their injuries.
The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
All I cared about is if the soldier came through the door immediately behind me when they were supposed to (no women in the unit ATT or now) If they do it right they're in...do it wrong no one has any use for them....just like the men. Early over there, I made mistakes and was "corrected" (not gently counseled) never made them twice because I did not want to be "That Guy", and I got over my hurt feelings quickly (you all had similar experiences) Those lessons probably kept me (and others) alive.  Women in combat should be treated the same way. You want in? only one way to prove yourself...and those in your unit will decide if you are worthy....Side note, no doubt promotions are different for those serving in combat because you are judged on a different scale.Â
There once was a soldier who was 5'5" and 110lbs. Â That soldier was denied entry to the marines, navy and the army paratroopers. Â Then the Army took him. Â He even passed out during drill training and the commander wanted to make him a cook. Â However he was determined. Â He became an infantry soldier. Â His name was Audie Murphy.
Â
He had the build and physical strength comparable to a female. Â
Â
If a 110lb man can become the most decorated solider in history imagine what a similarly determined female could do.
Â
Â
@DeadRabitz Yeah and he did not have a watered down PT test either.
 @wynooheeman  @DeadRabitz Neither do any of my soldiers.
Honestly, that's just too much. Maybe at a later date, but changes like this during a war screws all kinds of things up. These troops JUST went through a forced acceptance of openly gay members. Wile I don't fault anyone that wishes to serve their country, that itself is a big change from what was before. Now they want Women to serve together with Men in Infantry or other combat roles. That's just too much for the time being.Â
Â
One thing that none of these folks making up these new policies seem to understand is that morale among our troops is very low. Endless wars and being redeployed over and over has taken it's toll on our guys. So when you do things like force major changes during a war it makes these things even worse.Â
Â
I've seen female MP's in Combat, so I know they could do the job. That's not the issue. Another thing here that is strange is that Service Members, by contract, are not allowed to sue military or Government until that Contract is up.Â
That is one hot Lieutenant.
I think very few women could actually do this. Dont get me wrong, I think there are a few that can, and perhaps they should be allowed to. But, I also believe that they would have to pass the same tests as her male counterpart. This then brings up the problem of close quarters and even perceptions etc...... I am a big believer in women's rights.........heck I'm one myself *grin* but I'm really not wild about sending women into this situation especially if it is going to endanger the others in the group because they may make accommodations that they other wise wouldnt give another man. If that sounds sexist, well sorry but many men would be hard pressed to watch a woman die. If a woman really could go into this situation and sex could be completely removed from the equation, I would say go for it, but I'm not sure we are ready for that yet. That's not to say I think it's impossible, just not sure we are ready...As far as it blocking promotions.........sorry, I dont have any advice there...
when i went to fort benning for jump school we had 33 females only two graduated my class was appx 545 and graduated 478 do the math
woman can not be in armor, infantry, combat engineers and artillery everything else is open, just for example a road wheel on a tank 110 lbs, re load time 5 sec for a round on the main gun ect all require strength
combat effectness is also effected by a high % of pregnancy before deployments. living on an armored vehical for a long time present problems. this is always start by a few self serving officers
The hate I see on the KOMO forums is flat out insane! OK, let's just go back five centuries......
Â
Women, you lose the right to serve your country....
You lose the right to vote......
You do not deserve the same reproductive healthcare that is offered to your male counterparts....
Come to think of it, why are any of you in school right now? You should just read the Bible and conform to the scriptures that say that you should obey the man in your house hold?
Â
You (women) should be thankful that you are pretty put in the same contempt as African American soldiers were treated during the tail end of WW2.Â
Â
</Sarcasm Over>
 @path_tech  Yeah, usually the riffraff on these forums are the loudest with their one-liners, text-talk, and other halfwit statements.
Personally I think, they must be insane...
But my second thought is, the requirements will be dumbed down for them and that is dangerous.
@Willow
Dumbed down, lol! Maybe the requirements will be dumbed down so that whenever there is a battle, JAG will call a timeout and ask to review the battle parameters. Â Once the parameters have been assessed and both sides agree on what will be involved, then US command can assess if the female soldiers fall within the dumbed down requirements that you speak of. Â Is that what you were referring to.
Â
A battle is a battle. Â You're either in it or not!
Â
I think if they're physically capable, and meet all of the requirements to serve in combat, let them. Can you imagine the last thought to go through a Taliban mind being killed by a FEMALE? Makes ME feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
In all fairness, don't you think the commander in chief should be required to have military command experience as well?
 @Magic 8 Ball No.
@Furd @Magic 8 Ball Pray tell, WHY you think "No" Furd. Makes perfect sense that the man who is in charge of the most powerful military in the WORLD, should have SOME experience serving in the armed forces.
@Wolfen FDR never served
If they want to be on the front line, they need to meet the same reqs. Such as a shaved head and no menstruating.
@Tacoma ER Doc  Jesus Christ! No menstruating? If you are truely an ER Doc, I hope to GOD that I never have to be in you care.  Have you ever served in the active military? What a waste of skin.......
 @Tacoma ER Doc I don't know.  I might no be a bad thing to let the enemy face a women with PMS and a M-4 combat assault rifle.
 @My_Thoughts  @Tacoma ER Doc I agree with the shaved head comment.  Let's see how many line up then.
 @jowsuf  @My_Thoughts  @Tacoma ER Doc Go on base and find me five females willing to shave their head, grab a weapon and go on the front line tomorrow and if you can, I got a shiny quarter for ya kid.
 @TJM  @My_Thoughts  @Tacoma ER Doc Yes, women are so naive that they don't understand you get your head shaved in the military. They're totally oblivious. It would be a total shock. They would be outraged. Yes, that sounds absolutely reasonable. Totally.
If all requirements that a man is expected to complete..... I see no problem.
Say a woman gets deployed to the front line and she is 5 feet nothing and 100 pounds. Â Can SHE pack 80 pounds to her back and hold the line?
 @TJM If she can't, she wouldn't get the job. Just like a man who can't. There are women who can. It doesn't matter how many can't. Those who can deserve the same job.
 @jowsuf You don't get to justify it that way in the military.  You are sent to do the job you agreed to.  PERIOD.
 @TJM  @jowsuf I'll settle this one.  I am currently serving and we DO test for physical fitness.
 @jowsuf Did you serve?  Yes or no?
 @TJM About what?
 @jowsuf You're wrong kid.
 @TJM The fact that you're calling me spineless because I haven't served (another assumption you made without evidence) shows me that maybe stereotypes are correct. If they are, and by your logic they are, then you seem just about as smart as I'd assume the average military volunteer is. Generalizations don't work in the real world. See?
Â
Is a test for necessary physical requirements for a job not a test? Am I wrong? Or does the military not give physical tests to meet necessary demands for combat? Maybe I'm misinformed. Maybe they just give you a good look over and a high five.Â
Â
Come on.
 @TJM You might be able to argue some points on the basis that you've served, but a physical requirement is a physical requirement. If they don't meet it, they can't be combat. If they do, they can. Any anecdotal argument is moot.
 @jowsuf Did you serve in the military?
 @TJM Right. A person meets the requirements. Passes all tests. Proves 100% combat worthy. The only difference is they have a vagina. What am I missing here?
 @TJM If she can prove it, why not?
Also to add in:
Â
The Navy standards shows a man 24 and under has to do 37pushups in 2 minutes. Â A woman has to accomplish 16.
Â
I regularly saw women who couldn't get to 16. Â That was the standard, women couldn't do it. Â Now let's see them do what I did and strap an 80 pound pack and carry a weapon for 20 miles a day in 110 degree weather.
Â
Then I'll say "Yeah, our country is safe with women who can't do 16 pushups on the front line".
 @TJM Honestly were on earth do you come up with this stuff.  Yea, I walked 20 miles but its a slow pace.  Heck even EIB standards is less than that. Â
Â
I can tell you one thing, you're full of it pal.
 @TJM Umm, when I was in the military, I was considered a "PT studd".  Most men and women, and my command for that matter, couldn't score anywhere near my numbers.  Am I supposed to consider everyone below my standards as weak?  Just because I can run 2 miles in under 11 minutes and do almost 200 push-ups in 2 minutes, doesn't mean others are weak.
 @31F But would you not agree that there is a strength and endurance threshold below which employing a person who could not rise to that threshold could endanger fellow members of their team while in combat?
 @My_Thoughts  @31F There lines of combat in an asymmetrical conflict have caused many female soldiers to experience combat already.  Thus far they have done just fine. Â
 @My_Thoughts That's why I mentioned that it depends on the front-line activity.  My team (w/females) and I supported infantry battalions.  We basically deployed with specific infantry units to provide signal/comms for their FOBs, mobile units, and, in some cases, squads.  We had to provide our own protection (cover) and setup our equipment, which included grounding 6 foot ground rods, raising LoS antennas, cammo entire LAN source, running cable, etc...  These activities take a lot of, training, skills, strength, etc...  Not to mention, we had to re-deploy and deploy, again and again, every time the infantry unit moved.  My team wasn't large, just 6 of us.  Nonetheless, gender wasn't an issue.  Also, every time we got attacked my team, as a whole, executed smoothly.
 @jowsuf  @My_Thoughts  @31F They aren't!
Â
They are given considerable less!
 @My_Thoughts  @31F Why would women currently be given physical limit tests for combat when they cannot serve in combat roles? Why would you assume the military would test women on what they can do instead of what any person must be able to do? Tactically, that makes no sense in training soldiers for combat.
 @31F "I haven't experienced or witnessed a situation where a female couldn't fulfill her duty."  Isn't that in part because women have yet to be placed in positions where their strength and stamina could be a deciding factor?
Combat assignments cover a wide range of tasks.  Many of those tasks don't place a premium on an individuals strength and endurance but those that do would have to have the physical requirements adhered to strenuously with out exception in order to limit endangering their fellow soldiers.
 @My_Thoughts Yes, I agree with you, however from experience, both in training and hostile environments, I haven't experienced or witnessed a situation where a female couldn't fulfill her duty.  And, yes, I have experienced some of the scenarios presented in this forum.  I guess it would have to depend on the front-line activity, although in general both genders can equally cover-fire, retaliate, etc...Â
I served in the Navy. Â I witnessed girls not be able to do TWO pushups. Â I saw girls that couldn't run the mile and half in 22 minutes. Â
Â
There are some women who can do it. Â Most can't. Â Its not being sexist, its what I witnessed IN THE MILITARY.
 @TJM In the Army I have seem many female soldiers who can beat men at PT and Men who couldn't do any push-up or sit-ups.  As long as a soldier regardless of sex can pass the pt test and meet height / weight standards or tape test then they should be able to have nay job in the military.
I can't believe so many people here don't think equality between the sexes is deserved in this day and age. People make comments about women cutting their hair and meeting the same physical requirements as if the women who serve are too stupid to know what being a combat soldier involves. THEY KNOW! If a woman can meet the physical and mental requirements required for a combat position (not required for men or women, but universally for the demands of the job) then why can't they serve? These Americans are willing and READY to fight for their country as proud soldiers. It would be un-American in every way to deny women from being able to serve in combat roles. This is progress, and it WON'T be held back by generations old social ideals whether you like it or not.
@jowsuf No Jowsuf, old buddy, they DO NOT know! Take if from a combat veteran, when it comes to an issue like this you're either a combat vet or you don't know what the frig you're talking about. I have all kinds of respect for servicewomen. I realize that they've chosen to be in a basically sexist environment in order to serve. But I'm willing to bet real money that the number of women who have been under fire and had to stare down over the sights and put the metal into the meat is under 500 for the entirety of the GWOT. Does that make their service any less valuable than an 11-Bravo bush bunny? Not in the least.
Â
The question is 'can 1LT Farrell, USMCR, lift 300 lbs of bleeding marine [one of HER marines, that she commands] and get him clear while ordering the likely death of the rest of his squadmates as they hold off Mustafa the Mad Mullah?
Â
This is not a question of rights, or equality, or sexism. This is a question physical capability along with the ability to inspire confidence in both her command skill and her capability as a squadmate.
 @jowsuf  If the women who desire to enter combat meet the same strength and endurance requirements, with no exceptions, and that their stature in no other way increases the danger to their fellow soldiers or significantly affects their combat effectiveness, then by all means they should be allowed to compete for the combat assignments.
If a man could not meet the strength and endurance requirement and/or was short enough that his stature endangered his fellow soldiers or significantly affects his combat effectiveness he also should not be allowed into combat assignments.
Equality is fine as long as it's true equality with no exceptions.Â
 @My_Thoughts I wholeheartedly agree. If you're fit for the job, it shouldn't matter if you're a tranny from mars. Maybe  the average woman would be unable to meet the requirements. That shouldn't have anything to do with the women who do and are ready and able.
 @jowsuf Given that the gravity on Mars is 38% of Earth's gravity, I doubt a tranny from Mars could meet the requirements, but hey they should have an equal shot with everyone else.  :-)Â
 @My_Thoughts You are absolutely right.  There are standards that are somewhat representative of both genders.  As long as those standards are met, then training should ensue.Â