The young lady took the king's schilling. She broke the terms of the agreement and now wants to weasel out. Life is tough. It's even tougher if you aren't adult enough to keep your word.

Oh, jeezus kee-rist. I could practically hear the tragic music as I read that story.

Other than one line where she says she "may" have made a mistake, there is not one bit of acknowledgement that she did anything wrong.

Kid, you're just one more person who thinks the rules don't, or shouldn't, apply to you. I hope you learn that they do, in this case.

I also hope you realize how lucky you are in what you have.

I don't think it's the military's business if you have kids or not (or are married or not) so long as you follow your orders where they take you and do your job.

I doubt a ppregnant woman could get through Marine boot camp, but Air Force? Walk in the park. And that's from my DH, who has been through it.

She can be easily solved. Have a friend marry her, get her commission, and then have the marriage annulled the next day.

"Is Military Officerhood Incompatible With Single Parenthood?"

Dunno. Some people can make it work, but others can't. Each is certainly inconvenient when paired with the other.

But this is something the military has to live with and manage, and each branch has procedures to do that. In the Air Force, single-parent GIs and military-military couples have to submit an AF Form 357, Family Care Certification, describing who will look after the dependent children if the parents deploy, or worse. Moreover, this form has to be signed not only by the parents, but by the alternate caregivers, so everybody knows who's supposed to do what. Squadron First Sergeants spend a good bit of time making sure the GIs comply with this requirement, and it's not optional.

Among other things, when a GI signs the form, he or she is acknowledging that having dependents is not grounds for special treatment or privileges, and that failure to make and maintain family care plans is grounds for discharge. They're not kidding.

@M4: "I doubt a ppregnant woman could get through Marine boot camp, but Air Force? Walk in the park. And that's from my DH, who has been through it." Changed a bit in recent years. It ain't the Marine Corps, that's for sure, or even the Army. But I doubt a pregnant woman would want to spend several days in battle rattle sleeping in a tent, or lug a rifle around for weeks, or go through the gas chamber, like young trainee Airmen have to do today.

"The Air Force is making an assumption that single parents cannot provide adequately for their children if deployed," Edmonds' mother said.

Not at all. The military is not concerned about your crotchfruit. They know that single parenthood greatly reduces reliability/readiness.

But I doubt a pregnant woman would want to spend several days in battle rattle sleeping in a tent, or lug a rifle around for weeks, or go through the gas chamber, like young trainee Airmen have to do today.

Depends on the pregnancy. I'm 6-1/2 months now and am just as active as I was before. Pregnant women have run marathons. Some women get their asses kicked by pregnancy, but it's pretty smooth for others.

She broke the rules, so she can't say she didn't know, but the rules are ridiculous in this case. I don't see how it's the military's place to make assumptions about her family situation, or what kind of mother they think she's going to be. Judge her based on her actions, not on her potential actions.

Mom of 4, Officers don't go to boot camp.

They also don't "enlist"

Officers are commissioned and sign a contract.

When you enter ROTC under scholarship, you sign a contract that clearly states what you can and cannot do, if you want to continue to receive money for education, and eventually be commissioned.

I know several people, both men and women, who either failed to get a commission or lost theirs, because they failed to maintain military body fat standards, or had a drunk driving conviction.
No one has a "right" to be a militray officer. Seems to me this is a politcal stunt timed to jin up the meme that this is some kind of "war on women".

Mom of 4, Officers don't go to boot camp.

They also don't "enlist"

Officers are commissioned and sign a contract.

When you enter ROTC under scholarship, you sign a contract that clearly states what you can and cannot do, if you want to continue to receive money for education, and eventually be commissioned.

I know several people, both men and women, who either failed to get a commission or lost theirs, because they failed to maintain military body fat standards, or had a drunk driving conviction.
No one has a "right" to be a militray officer. Seems to me this is a politcal stunt timed to jin up the meme that this is some kind of "war on women".

So somehow the AF is in the wrong for having a rule designed to protect both itself and children from unfortunate realities of war? Perish the thought.

It IS important for armed forces to know about your situation and have rules about it, because they are looking for a fighting weapon, and things that are OBVIOUS detractors to readiness are a problem.

Talking of going through training while training is stupid because of the potential to damage or kill the child accidentally. Sure someone ran a marathon that way, and that was her decision. But it wasn't her JOB to run a marathon, and nobody was paying her specifically for her abilty to run, NOR would there be the potential in training to take a bodyblow accident that hurts the kid.

From the AF perspective IF the kid is accidentally hurt or killed, they got a huge problem on their hands, and that is that the Weapon, is no longer ready, or useful.

This all seems harsh, but the rule protacts many people, even if it restricts their decisions.

My mom used to tell me I could be anything I wanted. I just couldn't be everything I wanted.

More people's mothers need to tell them that.

"I don't see how it's the military's place to make assumptions about her family situation, or what kind of mother they think she's going to be. Judge her based on her actions, not on her potential actions."

I served on active duty for 20 years. I can assure you that it is the military's place to make those assumptions and impose those requirements; that role has been forced upon it by the legions of parents who would otherwise plan on a miracle occurring - or getting an exemption from deployment orders on the basis of being the sole caregiver. It was a big problem during Desert Storm and the services quickly tightened reporting requirements for changes in medical status to specifically include pregnancy.

Even in non-deployment situations, units spend an inordinate amount of time holding servicemen and women accountable for their responsibilities as parents, and a significant percentage of those cases involve single parents. Them's the facts and they are the rule, despite many admirable exceptions. Parenthood is hard; it's even harder if you're single. Successful single parenthood on active duty requires extraordinary organization, focus, energy, and luck.

Specifically in regard to this case: having billed herself as a "practicing Catholic", I am curious as to why she has not married the father of her child, better yet before the birth. The fact that they are still not married suggests to me that her "support network" isn't as strong as she'd like to believe. But that's just me, with 20 years of experience managing the consequences of behavior.

In light of "war on women" allegations by Democrats, am I the only person that finds it a strange coincidence that her congressman is Paul Ryan?

My father, a dishonorably discharged Army Officer use to tell me that integrity is essential in combat, because the lack can result in people getting killed and a mission being jeopardized. This woman lacks the necessary integrity to be an officer, regardless of her parenthood status.

This makes me glad I did not take the ROTC scholarship out of high school. I don't remember the recruiter telling me I would owe them the estimated 160K scholarship back if I got a DUI or got a girl pregnant. Considering that drinking and fucking are pretty big parts of college life that's a lot of risk to take on.

But listen honey, I can't even take a job working 4 10's because I'm a single dad. And I will forever make 70 cents on the dollar because of that. What you're asking for here is patently ridiculous.

What so many folks seem to forget is that the US military is NOT there for some folks to have a career or save money for college, etc.

No, the US military is there to protect the US. period.

I'm too lazy to look for the article; but, it was back during the first Gulf War, the Navy released a report that stated military pregancies dramtically increased when we went to war.

It turns out a lot of young women, thinking the military in peace time was a good way to earn money for college, "suddenly" became pregnant and were given leave just when they would be needed most. How convenient!

We taxpayers paid for these young women to go to war for us and when they were needed they found a way to get out of doing their job. I would imagine that the cost of training someone to be a nurse would be much more than training someone to simply work on board a ship; so, no this woman should not be given any special consideration.

Lastly, she says that her Catholic religion would forbid her from seeking an abortion. Yet, why didn't her Catholic faith prevent her from having pre-maritial sex? Again, how convenient! I wonder what the pope thinks about that?

I can certainly see the AF's point of view. I remember when the wars in the gulf & Afghanistan were just getting started there were many stories about parents who were supposed to be deployed but couldn't find care for their kids. Some I think were legitimate -- one women reported how her mother was supposed to do it but had since had some health issues and couldn't do it till she recovered. Others I think the people just bailed...."What? I didn't think that would ever really happen!" and some probably never really had anyone. And though, "oh look! I am pregnant" was quite common too from what I have heard.

I do wonder about the timing and the congressman being Paul Ryan.

This is not an issue of a single parent this is an issue of deceit to keep the position. If you say "I am pregnant" and "here is a caregiver and a backup caregiver if the first is unable/unavailable" they would most likely have put them in an easier job and after giving birth + some time off said OK, you have to get ready for deployment as you are back on the list.

This happened to my Uncle's ex, he was primary and her mother and father were secondary. I am not sure if backup was normally required back then but it was since my uncle was career Navy. This was back during the Gulf war.

Here, let me ask a simple question for you:

Of what use is a pregnant soldier?

The dedication you must have is to your unit.

Sorry. Your family comes second.

Period.

I would have more sympathy for her if she had married the guy or had not asked for a scholarship. Does no one accept any responsibility anymore ?

Single moms unable to serve is almost as good as gays not being able to serve. At least the gays are finally ahead of us on one.

She broke the rules. I'll grant you that. But they sign a designation form for cases of deployment. There are many two parent military families in which both parents are active military. There are many single moms and dads who deploy and do a great service to this country.

I credit a woman who wants to serve her country in this way. But please, let's drag out the old "single moms are unreliable" chatter. In every job and school review I've always received top scores for reliability. Have I ever had to take a day off because a kid was sick? Yes. But had I not been divorced, it still would have been me taking off. Being single was not what caused it.

I get all the people here who are against single parenting and I understand and appreciate some of the arguments. But we don't live in an ideal world. Enough of the one horse pony that the single mother discussions always turn into. Its kind of boring after awhile.

Does the policy discriminate?

In the sense that it prohibits one group from doing what another does, yes.

Does it do so unjustifiably?

After almost 14 years of military service, I can say a resounding NO.

Here is the bottom line:

It is the job of soldiers to go to war.

If you are a single parent, you cannot be relied upon to do so. You may express a willingness to do so, and may even mean it.

HOWEVER, child's father refuses, dies, goes to jail, gets ill, loses his job, a thousand times a thousand things can go wrong, suddenly you CAN'T go.

Furthermore, single parents have NOT proven a wise investment in military resources. I've seen single female soldiers deliberately start families just to get out of going because they "don't have a family care plan."

You can go to clubs outside of any military base when word of a deployment comes up, since single parents cannot be forced to deploy, people go out of their way to become single parents.

That is the cold hard unvarnished truth, whatever this person's intentions, whatever her abilities, she is not going to be able to adequately perform her duties, and even if she "could", the fact is you can't place a lot of faith in good intentions or "mights". Its just to expensive, and the military, no branch of it, really needs anyone right now but those who are absolutely fucking certain to be able to perform, deploy, and engage abroad on short notice.

I'm sure that it isn't just single women looking to get pregnant to get out of deployment but I won't claim to have those statistics. This is not a woman trying to get out of it. This is a woman trying to go who has a designation and a support system and a great support system.

I'd rather you make the argument that how can any parent want to leave their kids for multiple deployments or any deployment. I don't see single parents being the only factor here. Its an issue for parents in general.

That last comment was mine. I'm not sure why it says Robert.

"Single moms unable to serve is almost as good as gays not being able to serve. "

Being gay and being a single parent is NOT the same thing. Gay people do not have kangaroo pouches of other gay people that need them for their livelihood and care.

Did you know I can't serve in the military because I take certain medication? I'm perfectly healthy in a physical way but still I'm banned.

You do not have any excuse to not be in your deployment, this is what they are protecting themselves against. I dont care how good you are in the civil world because:

WAR IS QUITE A DIFFERENT EXISTENCE WHERE THE RELIABILITY YOU HAVE NOW IS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH

"This is a woman trying to go who has a designation and a support system and a great support system. "

Doesn't matter how good your support system is, have you ever met an employer that cared anyways? She is basically saying:

"You should totally bend the rules cuz like I totally have a good support system." (P.S. Tell that to an employer in the civil world).

You are under contract to a government agency that goes to war. They do not care how you might beat the statistics (single moms have horrible stats btw), but that you are a statistic they can rely on.

One more thing: A person that broke the contract now is someone that has shown 0 reliability. What stops them from breaking the contract again?

Weeks before being commissioned as a military officer, Edmonds discovered that she was pregnant.

We are more than a decade into the 21st century, with all advances medical knowledge readily available to anyone who can read.

Yet despite that, Edmonds doesn't know how her lady parts work?

Either she is too stupid to serve, or else too clever by half.

I'm going with the latter guess — she thought that getting pregnant would remove her obligation AND her debt.

Turns out she was half right.

[Charles:] I'm too lazy to look for the article; but, it was back during the first Gulf War, the Navy released a report that stated military pregancies dramtically increased when we went to war.

I spent a couple years with the Navy, and heard plenty of stories about female sailors getting pregnant just before a long cruise

I know that rules are all judgmental and stuff, and that is so old fashioned.

Oddly, of all the US institutions, the military (IIRC) retains by far the highest respect.

Perhaps those two things are related somehow.

I credit a woman who wants to serve her country in this way. But please, let's [not] drag out the old "single moms are unreliable" chatter.

Your kidding, right?

With respect to serving in the military, other than as a REMF (of which the fewer, the better) single moms, as a group, are unreliable and a distraction from the mission.

But take my opinions with a grain of salt, as I have nothing but first hand experience to go on.

When I was in the USAF (late 80's), my ex-supervisor (E-7) divorced her E-7 husband. They had ten year old son. She was sent to Japan for two years. Her son was living with the single father. (That was probably the best thing to happen to the son. Mom was a controlling bitch.) The father was killed in a car accident about nine months in to her being in Japan. She was allowed to go home for the funeral and a week of "bereavement" leave.

The son moved in with the father's parents as laid out in the parenting plan.

She fought to get back to the states for about six months after his death. It was repeatedly denied. It was the needs of the military first.

Currently serving (per Wiki):

• 329,638 active personnel
• 68,872 reserve personnel
• 94,597 air guard personnel
• 61,383 Auxiliaries

That is 554,490 people that they have to track by AFSC (job code), age, rank, enlistment date, expected discharge date, date on station, DEROS (Date Expected Return from Overseas), etc. Try to write a flowchart on that.

Then throw in some poor sucker at MPC is expected to kiss a little lieutenant's ass so she doesn't get sent to South Korea, Afghanistan or other remote site.

I knew a butter bar (O-1) that had to do 18 months in SK so she could get a relatively close posting to her husband who was a NOAA O-2.

She signed up for the job. Do it or take the consequences.

I believe the phrase was "mission over men" in my day. It's not your average day job. You aren't required to like the rules. You're merely required to follow them.

I had a friend who had two toddlers. Both she and her husband were in the reserves. I asked her how they could do that. Who would take care of her kids if both were called to service. She told me that they were earning a couple thousand per month. Yeah, but what if? She thought it would never happen. Yes, they were both called to serve. You should have seen the tears, the pleading, etc. She finally found a neighbor who could care for her children for a couple of weeks. She had called in favors and she was able to get by with only a couple of weeks without family care. I personally couldn't see why she should get special privileges. That why we were paying them - so they would be available when we needed them. If not - quit taking our money.

For background, I was a single mom of 3, and am a Marine mom and Navy wife.

I sympathize with this woman, but she's wrong for a number of reasons.

First, she did indeed sign a contract. She had access to military medical care, and she could have all but eliminated the chance of getting pregnant simply by getting a birth control implant. I'm guessing she was not raped, nor did the father of the baby happen to fall into her vagina. Therefore, she is responsible for getting pregnant.

Second, single moms are a military disaster. It costs a fortune, and sometimes entire missions, to remove pregnant women from forward or deployed positions.

Third, officers especially are supposed to demonstrate good judgment and self-control. Get pregnant when you're not supposed to, and you demonstrate you have neither. I do not want officers with poor judgment and little self-control in charge of my sons and my country's safety.

Fourth, even when not in critical deployed positions, single moms can cause terrible stress for fellow military members and those they command. Case in point: my son and his unit were deployed for a special mission in Hawaii (where my husband was also stationed, conveniently, so I got to see all this unfold.) On the first day, his gunny, a single mom, got a call from her child care provider that something had come up and she would be unable to care for the children for the duration of the mission. Gunny flew home on an emergency flight. The military did not replace her. My son's unit were left to fend for themselves on a base where they did not fit into the chain of command. This might not sound too bad, except: they were in the middle of nowhere with no transportation; they had no proof that they were entitled to eat at the nearby mess (Gunny hadn't had time to arrange for this); and because there was no one to say no, the units all around targeted them for every shit job that came up. It placed inordinate stress on a group that were already pretty stressed.

Even married military members with children can be problematic. There have been dozens of cases where military members have had to go home on emergency leave to care for children when spouses desert the family, get sick, even die. Adding in single parenthood to an already highly demanding job isn't fair to the child or to the integrated unit around the member.

And addressing a point above, all other things being equal, I'd rather have a gay service member than a pregnant single service member, hands down. The gay service member does not have his dedication split by the enormous and serious responsibility of raising a child.

> Judge her based on her actions, not on
> her potential actions.

Pregnant is a big action.

Why give your best training to an employee who you know is going to be distracted as Hell?

In WWII, the US wouldn't draft fathers until October 1943.

People used to understand these things.

Christ, I hate single motherhood.

I hate it with the undying fire of ten thousand scorching suns.

I hate it during business hours, on weekends, and on holidays both religious & secular.

I hate it on airplanes, buses, freeways and sidewalks.

I hate it in books, museums, concerts and the theater... In the temple and the classroom. In the sports arena and the shopping mall. In the courtroom and the blog post.

I hate it on the phone, via fax, and I especially hate it in person. I hate it so much when it's deliberate or casual that I sometimes hate it when it's accidental and unforeseen.... It's tragic either way.

Do you ever get the sense that American character no longer demonstrates civilization's embrace of courage, comity or stoicism?

Also, how come it had to be called "single parenthood" in the title of this blog post?

I think this is the problem. Foolish, listless people are trying too hard to clump delicate topics into turdlike mudballs, that they might be more conveniently rolled off the cliff and out of sight.

There's no good numbers on this... We can be quite certain...

And so, my dearest bunnyfriend blog comment-readers, I ask for YOUR best guess... Give me a number. Don't just say, with shallow lungs and a singsong tone, 'Oh golly— more than you'd think!'

What percentage of the "single parents" who are causing this to be a problem for our armed services are, in fact, men?

Because GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.

This is about women... Irresponsible, idiot women.

And here's how we know: If irresponsible, idiot men were trying to saddle the rest of us with these burdens, they would announce — after Basic or some other service training — that ('Surprise!') the government was going to have to make allowances for the (3) bastard children they conceived in the parking lot of some Louisiana roadhouse summer-before-last.

It doesn't happen.

Our generations have welcomed a horrific new kind of personal incompetence to the public sphere... Welcomed it gifts and praise and fellowship.

I hate it.

(Pencil.)

Interesting. From active duty (AD) time, I knew many single-parent families (still do as a civilian working for the military). Not uncommon by any means. I was just a functional and not a squadron commander so I don’t know about the policies or politics. However, I did personally see examples of AD women getting a ‘surprise’ pregnancy so they are no longer in the ‘bucket’ to deploy (in short, you are only at risk of deploying for a certain amount of time, i.e. 6 months out of a 24 month period; if you are unable to deploy during that period you are no longer at risk when you exit those 6 months). With the exception of a few, a vast majority of single-parent women I knew were more than willing to deploy in support of the mission.

My take: the world of ROTC/Academy/OTS (any pre-AD military) is a world unto itself, with its own rules, regulations and requirements that would make no sense and are not reflected by the standards of someone on AD (and some of those standards are waaaaaaay different in pre-AD). For example, if she were to have been commissioned and promptly impregnated the next day this would not have been an issue. But she did it in the netherworld of pre-AD and, as per contract, is facing the consequences.

"First, she did indeed sign a contract."

I see this all the time, and there's something huge missing.

The Oath of Office.

The concept of "duty" is alien to many people. Birthday? You'll enjoy it at your post, where you promised everyone you'd be. Sick? There's a doctor at your place of duty, so we'll see you when you get here, on time at that. Child? On a submarine, you get to choose between being there for the conception or the delivery, take your pick - we'll congratulate you there at sea when the message arrives.

That's what you signed up for: serving, not being accommodated, especially for bad decisions.