U.S. babies in a war zone?

The military’s policy on women service members is broken and must be fixed! Last week’s disclosure that a Marine staff sergeant gave birth on the USS Boxer – an amphibious assault ship stationed in the Persian Gulf – should set off alarm bells.

This is believed to be the first active-duty woman to deliver a baby on a combat ship in a war zone.

Washington Times writer Rowan Scarborough, following up on a tip to Center for Military Readiness, disclosed that this birth occurred on May 23, at 10:58 p.m., to a 33-year-old woman who is assigned to Headquarters Battery of the 11th Marines as an administrative chief.

Move over Jessica Lynch! Can you see it? Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer racing to knit a pair of booties or maybe a little sweater to send to the new mum in an effort to land the first interview and CBS scurrying to line-up writers for a two-hour documentary. Let’s not forget the movie rights … then again, maybe not.

After Scarborough’s inquiry, the Marines dutifully put out a short press release announcing the blessed event, but the story was buried.

Could it be that the media is not anxious to call attention to the fact that the military’s policy on pregnancy and the assignment of women in the services is not only misguided, it’s completely unenforceable?

The Pentagon is reporting that this Marine told superiors that she “did not know she was pregnant.” Duh!

The baby was a seven-pound boy. That’s full-term! You would think that nine months of missed periods would have been a clue that something was amiss. What about bouts of sluggishness, morning sickness, sore breasts – and, in the later months, the baby’s movements and kicks?

Of course she knew, but what about the rest of the crew? What about her expanding belly? Were the Marine officers on that ship so cowed by a few feminists in their midst that they looked the other way when this sergeant began putting on weight, or was the whole boat grossly overweight and out of shape? What about morning drills?

Many of the problems with pregnancy and the assignment of women in the services can be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration which had little use for the military and used it as a laboratory for social experimentation.

Clinton’s defense secretary, Les Aspin, did everything he could to advance the theory that men and women are interchangeable fungibles. He rewrote the regs, eliminating the “risk rule,” that had prevented women from being assigned to combat zones and his secretary of the Navy, John Dalton, exacerbated the problem by issuing a set of directives – which also cover the Marine Corps – that allow women to serve aboard ships through the 20th week of pregnancy. An excellent analysis of the Dalton policy is available from the Center for Military Readiness.

A servicewoman who suspects she is pregnant is “responsible” for prompt confirmation and notification of her commanding officer, but there is no penalty for violating the notification provision and there is no mandatory test for pregnancy before deployment. It’s just another version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The Dalton directive states that pregnancy is “a natural event that can occur in the lives of Navy and Marine Corps servicewomen.” However, whether a pregnancy should be viewed as a “natural event” aboard warships is quite another matter.

A warship in a battle zone is subject to attack, and women – particularly pregnant women – are not as physically capable as men of surviving such an attack. This puts their shipmates at greater risk.

Why did this Marine hide her pregnancy? Extra pay, or some misguided notion that she was irreplaceable, or somehow furthering the advancement of women’s rights perhaps? We may never know.

However, the fact that her commanding officers looked the other way and allowed this woman to stay aboard ship should not come as a big surprise. The Dalton policy states: “Medical limitations, assignment restrictions, and /or periods of absence due to pregnancy or associated medical care shall not be the basis for downgrading marks or adverse comments.” This effectively put a gag order on all service members. Anyone who commented negatively on this woman’s “delicate condition” could be severely punished.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., has called for a vigorous inquiry and debate about military personnel policies. It is time – past time – that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., begin debate on this failed policy now. Military advocacy groups, veterans’ groups and pro-family groups should demand it.