THE DEFENSE of our democratic ideals and constitutional freedoms is carried out by U.S. citizens stationed around the world. These citizens, as protectors of our flag and Constitution, value the individual rights and freedoms granted by our Constitution dearly, enough to put their lives on the line. Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to deny these brave and courageous citizens their constitutional rights. Regardless of personal beliefs, the Supreme Court has established that (for now) abortion is protected by the Constitution, and therefore the 100,000 or so servicewomen and military dependents should no doubt be offered access to abortion in military hospitals.
Currently, federal law provides that "no medical treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest." This ban also precludes the idea of a U.S. servicewomen receiving an abortion for which she pays for personally. Many, but certainly not all, pro-lifers, in their self-righteous pursuit of morality enforcement, support this offensive ban on the right to choose in the military. Therefore, if women require abortions for any other reasons, such as a possible non-fatal health risk, she would be forced to receive care at a local hospital. Perhaps this option sounds fair if the servicewomen was located in Western Europe, but its plausibility is nonexistent in Third World countries. Many non-American facilities are inadequate and simply dangerous, or even too far to be reached. Also, the safety of the servicewomen would be jeopardized in certain areas where anti-American sentiments run high. Obviously, many of our servicewomen are put in a situation where abortion simply is not accessible.
Whether pro-choice or pro-life, certain relevant facts are unambiguous. First of all, the right to choose in 2004 is a constitutional right. Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern (1992) and Roe v. Wade (1973) all clearly establish a women's right to make individual choices about her body and life. In Harris v. McRae (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that the government does not have to fund abortions, but this case is inapplicable to the situation at hand because the military also bans abortions paid for by the client. Furthermore, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Supreme Court allowed the state of Missouri to ban state facilities from providing abortions, but specifically mentioned that the decision was based on the availability of abortions in private clinics -- obviously, this is also inapplicable, because there are no private American clinics in other nations, and sometimes no clinics at all. Furthermore, some proponents of the ban may claim that the military may limit constitutional rights, citing, for example, that Navy sailors are prohibited from striking -- however, this argument is void, because, unlike other constitutional rights such as the right to assemble, offering abortions does not retard or affect military operations.
The United States is currently failing not only to afford its citizens their constitutional rights, but is clearly violating its own international commitments. In a document labeled "Key actions for the further implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development," the United States pledged an international agreement saying, "In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health systems should train and equip health-service providers and should take other measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible. Additional measures should be taken to safeguard women's health." Clearly, the standing military policy is in violation of this international promise, a promise made on our own free will.
The issue is not whether choice should exist in general, for even if pro-lifers do not like it, a women's right to make individual decisions concerning her body is currently a constitutional guarantee. Thus, while it is guaranteed to citizens at home, it must be guaranteed to citizens abroad, citizens who are giving their lives to fight for the very same rights. It makes absolutely no sense to deprive only our courageous servicewomen and dependents of their right to choose. The argument is not against the pro-life stance, which is a whole separate issue. The argument is that while the right to choose exists, it should not be outside the reach of those most deserving of American freedoms. In the name of consistency, in the name of decency and in the name of the Constitution, the U.S. government must repeal this flagrant attack on the freedoms of our troops.
Sina Kian's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skian@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
