The 28th amendment stunt

ThatOwlWoman said:
That's fair enough. But if Mr. Hegseth, who doesn't believe in women in military combat roles, wins his nomination, it won't happen. If women get drafted, wouldn't they have to perform the same roles as men draftees?
Click to expand...
They can't get out of their own way. Every time we take a step back, cross our arms, and let them rant, they fuck themselves. They don't want women to be firefighters or soldiers, but they want them to be drafted into the military.

MAGA. The dumbest dumb asses that have ever dumbed down the human race.
 
Bigdog said:
Hegseth testified to congress that he supports women in combat. What he opposes is LOWRING STANDARDS so women can be in combat.
Click to expand...
Lefties hate those pesky details that they choose to ignore. "A few fine people" "march to the capitol", etc.
 
Damocles said:
If it was a matter of law, yes. However, if the ratification stands (not a done deal here, courts will have to work on this mess). Since it specifically talks about laws though, it may not apply to "policy". :dunno: Should they maintain that SecDef policies have the weight of "law" then he would not be able to set such restrictions on service. Though drafting women to take roles other than combat roles would not be out of place.
Click to expand...

I expect that if a future draft includes females, they are going to be able to force the military to let them serve in any capacity that they are mentally, psychologically, and physically capable of. Combat experience leads to better pay and better chance of promotion. Denying that opportunity based on gender would clearly violate equal rights laws.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I expect that if a future draft includes females, they are going to be able to force the military to let them serve in any capacity that they are mentally, psychologically, and physically capable of. Combat experience leads to better pay and better chance of promotion. Denying that opportunity based on gender would clearly violate equal rights laws.
Click to expand...
Those laws exist already. Basically, what would change based on this amendment? Other than women would now be included in Selective Service laws as a law that requires just "men" to do something would no longer be allowed.

It does seem as if the Amendment long expired. Both in 1979 and then 1982 when they artificially extended the deadline for ratification.
 
Damocles said:
Those laws exist already. Basically, what would change based on this amendment? Other than women would now be included in Selective Service laws as a law that requires just "men" to do something would no longer be allowed.

It does seem as if the Amendment long expired. Both in 1979 and then 1982 when they artificially extended the deadline for ratification.
Click to expand...
Perhaps women could not be legally prevented from receiving life-saving medical care. You know. Like men.
 
Diesel said:
Perhaps women could not be legally prevented from receiving life-saving medical care. You know. Like men.
Click to expand...
I'd doubt that. The law against abortion would simply apply to men as well since the law cannot be different "on account of" sex. Nor is that often "life saving", but we'll let you go ahead and emote all over the argument.
 
Damocles said:
I'd doubt that. The law against abortion would simply apply to men as well since the law cannot be different "on account of" sex. Nor is that often "life saving", but we'll let you go ahead and emote all over the argument.
Click to expand...
Don't be such a drama queen, Damo. The law against abortion would have to be overturned because there isn't a similar restriction on male reproductive health. Fire up your brain and follow me.
 
Diesel said:
Don't be such a drama queen, Damo. The law against abortion would have to be overturned because there isn't a similar restriction on male reproductive health. Fire up your brain and follow me.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. It would simply be changed to "no person" and be the same. Especially nowadays when folks who call themselves men can be a "person who menstruates"... (though they told us back in the day that sex and gender were different things). I wonder too how it might affect Title IX... That one almost has no power any longer nowadays.
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect. It would simply be changed to "no person" and be the same. Especially nowadays when folks who call themselves men can be a "person who menstruates"... (though they told us back in the day that sex and gender were different things).
Click to expand...
You think men are going to give up a right? :ROFLMAO: How wrecked are you right now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top