The Pentagon will pay for service members who need to cross state lines for abortion

Originally published at: The Pentagon will pay for service members who need to cross state lines for abortion | Boing Boing


You know you done fucked up when the freakin Pentagon has more of a moral compass than your alleged belief system.


I’ll bet this will really piss off the super-duper patriotic types who never served - especially the xtianist ones.


But how often will this come into play practically? The state laws against abortion don’t apply on military bases, where active duty military and their families receive medical care.

What would be a real test would be an active duty soldier who receives an abortion leaving base for some reason, and being arrested by local or state authorities for violating the state abortion ban. Many of the state laws try to assert jurisdiction even if the abortion is performed elsewhere. It wouldn’t so much be a constitutional crisis but rather an abject lesson in the practical application of the supremacy clause.


The military also acknowledged the climate emergency long before a lot of conservatives (including some “centrist” Dems) did. These things are more about expediency and institutional self-interest than morals for the Pentagon but they do highlight the inherent immorality of the American right.


The Hyde amendment DOES apply to abortions performed on military bases. So, service members have to seek abortions in civilian facilities. Hence, this new policy since in 13 states they can no longer do so.


That would be the exact point I just made; I have no illusions that the US military has any actual morality.


Good point. Dammit!


This. Exactly. Also why some major corporations, especially reinsurance companies, acknowledged and acted on climate change far earlier. When it hits the bottom line, it gets attention.


I don’t think abortion services are necessarily one of the kinds of medical care you can find at every military base.


You’d be surprised. They certainly provide OB/GYN and L&D services at major bases, but as @cepheus42 rightly pointed out, they aren’t supposed to provide abortion. Though they aren’t as stupidly restricted as many of these state laws. For instance, they aren’t at all restricted against performing any emergency surgery, such as for ectopic pregnancy, like most of these stupid state laws.


1 2 3 a GQP’er loses their mind…


The Hyde Amendment does allow for abortion in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the woman. In fact, it doesn’t even wait until she is on her deathbed, just certification by a physician that the pregnancy would place the woman in danger of death.

So, more progressive than the current crop of Xianists want to allow, which is saying a hell of a lot!


Exactly. The cost of unwanted pregnancies is significantly more than the cost of abortions. There is no value judgement in the decision to fund healthcare, there is the realization of the impact on the ability to operate. But it certainly doesn’t hurt when doing the right thing is the right thing for a multitude of reasons.


Does this mean that a resident in Texas can sue the United States Secretary of Defense under Texas’s awful law because that direction constitutes:

knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter

under section 171.208 of Texas’s Health and Safety Code?




Beau of the 5th Column was talking about how military bases might be moved in light of Anti-Trans Laws; so that trans personnel wouldn’t be based in anti-trans states, because the bases wouldn’t no longer be sited there. I guess that trouble with abortions might add more impetus to that possibility; there being a geographic overlap between anti-trans laws and anti-abortion laws.

Edited to remove the mistakes of a tired mind.


I would rather those bases stay as islands where those states can’t enforce their idiotic laws. I would think that would be paired with a clear statement from the federal government that interfering with any member of the armed forces or their family, or any federal employee or family member, or contractor to the government, would be a violatiin of the supremacy clause and subject to immediate review for federal consent decree against the law enforcement agency doing the interference.

ETA: Side note that the DOJ could also warn Florida that their discriminatory enforcement of their “election fraud” law would be subject to consent decree. Something like 70% of the people arrested for “election fraud” were BIPOC in a state that’s 77% white.


From what I understand, those bases can be a big part of the state’s economy, and that threatening to remove the bases might have an effect on local politics; hopefully for the better.


True, but would relocation of those bases affect the assholes who push these laws or the victims of those laws?