Military abortions, paid for by (some of) you?

I usually don't post articles to start threads, but I'm very interested to see what the rest of this segment of society thinks. I don't necessarily want to bring up Roe v. Wade or Women's Rights or anything, but more what should be done at military hospitals, whose costs should be paid for by whom, etc. Below is from the Military Times. A google search brings up similar articles by the Catholic League, Feminists for Women's Rights, etc.

 

I'm also intrigued (though not surprised) by the rhetoric in the article and the leaps some will make. In another article...

 

Abortions seem quite advantageous for the military, since presumably a pregnancy carried to term results in the loss of personnel for a significant period of time. Actually, what's the policy on pregnant personnel, Brian? How much leave do they get, or are they discharged altogether?

barfo

 

Oregon Health Plan covers it.

 

They cannot be discharged if they want to stay in the military, and their places are generally not manned with replacements. In fact, some are allowed to quit if they don't want to come back to duty after the 6 weeks provided.
My sister-in-law is active duty, and she was given 6 weeks paid maternity leave before she had to go back to work, and after that was off of flight status for (iirc) 4 months. She isn't even eligible to deploy until the baby is 1.

 

The "current policy" is different for Army, Navy and Marines...I don't know about the Air Force.

While I agree that a discussion of women's rights vs. their military duties, obligations and responsibilities would make for a good discussion, the question was if you like your tax money being spent on military abortions, as the bi-partisan Senators described it.

 

Although it doesn't sound to me like tax money is being spent on military abortions, I'd be completely in favor of it. It sounds like a terrific investment, given that the alternative is to pay 6 weeks of leave and have her be unavailable to fully perform her job for considerably longer.

barfo

 

Since when is NPR quoting a Washington Times article not news? Or are you saying that the "Military Times" in the first one wasn't a legit source?
Superior officers can "refuse to grant a leave", but they cannot refuse the pregnant woman being transferred from the command before the 20th week of pregnancy. The pregnant sailor cannot be assigned duties considered "hazardous" (most doctors would say that duty onboard a ship of war is "hazardous"), must be within 50 miles of a Navy hospital, and cannot be assigned to those duties for up to 12 months afterward.
Here's the Navy policy powerpoint

 

That's more along the lines of my question. I agree that, taking the morality aspect out of it, there's something to be said for just being able to do a procedure that keeps you from not performing your duties for up to 21 months. Hence my confusion about some of the senators saying gov't money shouldn't be paying for it. Hence my confusion when some posters say I don't quote news sources and don't know about women's rights.