ANALYSIS – In yet another act of supreme bipartisan sanity by the Senate Armed Services Committee, an amendment to the annual defense policy bill would bar the military from considering state laws in deciding where to station service members.
Five Democrat senators joined all 13 Republicans on the committee to vote for the amendment.
Earlier I wrote about the same Senate committee instructing the Pentagon to ‘immediately’ end its highly politicized ‘counter-extremism’ effort.
In this case, according to Military.com:
The amendment comes after Military.com reported in May that the Army was drafting a policy that could allow soldiers to request a move if state or local laws discriminate against them based on gender, sex, religion, race or pregnancy.
During a closed-door meeting last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 18-8 to prohibit the Pentagon from using the “agreement or disagreement of a member of the Armed Forces with the State laws and regulations applicable to any duty station when determining the duty assignment of the member.”
And the mostly bipartisan logic was spot on. In an emailed statement to Military.com, a spokesperson for Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) the amendment’s sponsor, said:
Allowing our service members to veto the needs of the service because they disagree with state or local laws could lead to a sorting of the military along ideological lines that would devastate readiness, unit cohesion, and the American people’s respect for their military.
The spokesperson added that the amendment is meant “to preemptively tell the Department of Defense that individual service members should not have veto power over their duty station assignment because they disagree with laws and regulations in the state or community in which they are being assigned.”
Miltary.com explained that:
The vote added the language to the committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. While the committee released a summary of the bill last month, it did not release the full text until Monday.
The bill must still be voted on by the full Senate and then reconciled with the House’s version of the NDAA before becoming law.
The left has been shrieking over state laws such as the one in Florida restricting the discussion of sexual topics to school children younger than eight, falsely labeling them anti-LGBTQ, despite the clear focus on protecting young children.
But after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, they have added abortion rights to their list of reasons troops should be able to be transferred to another state.
After the Supreme Court decision, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the department was “evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law.”
Though, as Military.com notes, “the length of time it takes to transfer duty stations would make it difficult for a woman to relocate between finding out she’s pregnant and having the pregnancy come to term.”
Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine, of Virginia, said he supported the amendment because troops need to be stationed wherever they are most needed for the defense of the country noting: “… ultimately military personnel officials make the decisions best for the defense mission. That is as it should be.” ALD
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Woke Pentagon’s Recruiting Crisis Gets Even Worse >>
Paul Crespo is the Managing Editor of American Liberty Defense News. As a Marine Corps officer, he led Marines, served aboard ships in the Pacific and jumped from helicopters and airplanes. He was also a military attaché with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at U.S. embassies worldwide. He later ran for state and federal office, taught political science, wrote for the editorial board of a major newspaper and had his own radio show. A graduate of Georgetown, London and Cambridge universities, he brings decades of experience and insight to the issues that most threaten our American liberty – at home and from abroad. To read more go to: paulcrespo.com.
Wow. Wish they had something like that when I was serving. I was stationed several places I didn’t want to go. If the bill had passed where a servicemember could request not going to a certain base I’m pretty sure Oakland CA would close down the Naval Supply Center Pretty sure San Diego would be closed as well.. Who in their right mind would want to be stationed in CA and have to deal with the liberals living there?
When you join the military, you leave your rights at the door. You become the property of the military and you do as you’re told, you go where you’re told and when you’re told. Readiness has no politics Battles have no politics. If you’re a queer or a libtard, stay the fk away from the military Real men fight. Sissies hide.
Great way to put it all in context—next they will want to choose their overseas duty like no to any Middle East country. this is like the inmates running the asylum as Tim Kaine and Gavin Newsome do now.
Another way to punish states that do not follow the woke line, and monetarily reward woke states. Bye, Bye USA, hello communist states of America.
Probably the first sensible thing ever spoken by Sen. Tim Kaine.
Tom, you’re dead on correct. I, myself never served, but wish I had. But,yours is the attitude I have toward those that do. It is a both a patriotic and personal sacrifice to do so. I have close personal friends that have served (one recently retired Lt Cl) and he saw none of this Woke BS during his dutiful service. What the hell is going on? I am afraid for the safety our service members and (afraid) of our leadership for allowing such political issues seeping into military regiment. Shame on this all.