House Committee Passes Bill Requiring Women to Register for Draft

A House Committee has passed a bill requiring women to register for the draft upon turning 18.

Women would be required to register for the military draft under a House committee bill that comes just months after the Defense Department lifted all gender-based restrictions on front-line combat units. A divided Armed Services Committee backed the provision in a sweeping defense policy bill that the full House will consider next month...

Total defense spending package in the overall bill: $602 billion.

War is not the answer. Either is the draft (which we haven't had since 1973.)

< San Bernardino Shooter's Brother Charged With Marriage Fraud | The Will of Bernie >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Men from 18-25 have been registering (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    for the draft since 1980 even though there has been no draft. Nothing wrong with adding women to the list...although I am curious how many men actually do follow the law and register.

    Selective Service Registration (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    is tied to a bunch of federal programs, including student loans, so I would think many if not most people have registered as required.

    I am OK with women registering and I am OK with reinstating the draft. Shrink the professional military to a compact core of people that can be sent around the world at any time. But if we want 50,000 soldiers, have Congress vote for a draft. Right now, war is too easy to get into.


    Yes, registration (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    is the law; failure to do so is a felony punishable by a fine of $250,000 and up to five years in prison.  Registration is required for eligibility for federal student financial aid, as well as, in some cases, state financial aid.  Registration is necessary for most federal employment and security clearances for contractors.  

    Nothing wrong with adding women... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    This must be part of the cornucopia school of economics where there are always and forever unlimited resources. This is a complete waste of money and human talent.

    why? (none / 0) (#5)
    by linea on Thu Apr 28, 2016 at 08:46:44 PM EST
    so women can work as secretaries like in israel?  that's what an israeli woman told me.  everything in the military is designed for the average male.  everything.

    Let me make this a little plainer (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 11:18:03 AM EST
    Even in WWII the military got enough women voulenteers that a draft was not needed. There is no reason to believe that with today's greatly reduced military a draft will be necessary to bring in sufficient women. That being the case it wastes money, the valuable time of the registrants, and wastes the time of those that enforce registration.

    If you think this is really more important than greater funding for Head Start, just say so.


    Also untrue (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    Registration for the draft went into effect in 1940 and continued well past the war -- and draft callups did occur during WWII.

    Not for women (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 01, 2016 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    obviously (none / 0) (#8)
    by linea on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    you didn't make it plainer enough for me because i'm not following your thoughts.  {smile}

    i don't feel ww2 is a good reference.  i imagine the military would want to draft women with speciific skills such as nursing rather than accept women volunteers who want to drive a tank or be trained to fly a helicopter.

    i don't know what you mean when you ask whether this topic is more important than funding for Head Start.  does that mean i shoudn't have an opinion on anything "less important" than head start?

    anyway, i don't really know know what that is.  wiki says, "Head Start programs typically operate independently from local school districts."  isn't that bad?  pulling money away from public schools to fund privately owned NGOs?


    Head start was only an example (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 01, 2016 at 09:01:08 PM EST

    Number 1. The milittary has no need to draft women, there is zero shortage of volunteers.

    Unless you think there are unlimited resources then the resources consumed to support female draft registration would not be available for other any other use. There is no free lunch.

    Head start, better road maintenance, and cancer research are all just a few of the things that would be a better use for those resources IMO.


    Is it odd (none / 0) (#9)
    by sallywally on Sun May 01, 2016 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    that the House, which passes nothing, passed this  just as the first woman has been nominated as president?