Sounds like somebody needs to read "Dunk's Almanac!"

"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
In case you missed the nano-second of news media attention it received
amid all the other major stories and issues from the war with Iraq, a
Marine staff sergeant assigned to the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer
gave birth to a healthy 7-pound boy while her ship was operating in the
Persian Gulf.

Pentagon officials at the time said they believed this was the first
time an active-duty servicewoman delivered a baby on a combat ship in a
war zone.

From my perspective as a career military officer, I fervently pray that
this is also the very last time an active-duty woman delivers a baby on
a combat ship in a war zone.

This event is certainly worthy of public and military attention, not
only because it was a historic first-time event, but because of its
realities, its implications, and the serious military readiness
questions it raises.

The incident clearly moves the debate over gender-integration of combat
units from the realm of the hypothetical to the realm of reality; from
mere speculation to actuality. Itis no longer a "What if.?" scenario,
but a legitimate "What now.?" situation. The bottom line is that now
this has happened, all of us in the military need to closely examine
what transpired, how those in her chain of command handled it, and what
steps we must take to prevent a similar case from ever happening again.

According to an article in The Washington Times on June 11, 2003, the
Marine:

"[T]old superiors that she did not know she was pregnant. 'She never
told anybody she was pregnant,' the official said. 'I think she claimed
she didn't know she was pregnant. The good thing was the Boxer has a
complete hospital on board, so that was not a problem .. ' The Marine is
assigned to a ground unit in Kuwait and was aboard the USS Boxer in the
Gulf area when she went into labor."

I first learned of this birth in an e-mail on May 28, but it wasn't
until June 10 that Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps finally released a
public statement after a Washington Times inquiry:

"The medical staff of the USS Boxer delivered a 7-pound baby boy on
board the ship May 23 at 10:58 p.m. The mother, a 33-year-old U.S.
Marine staff sergeant, is assigned to Headquarters Battery 11th Marines
as an administrative chief. Mother and baby, both healthy and in good
condition, were transported from Boxer to the New al Mowasat Hospital in
Salmiya, Kuwait. Following a short stay, they will travel to San Diego.
Names are being withheld until immediate family has been notified."

According to the article, Navy regulations, which also cover the Marine
Corps, say that pregnancy is compatible with military service. Updated
this past March, the regulations further state:

"The individual servicewoman is responsible for notifying her CO ... of
her pregnancy as soon as possible, but no later than two weeks after
diagnosis of pregnancy. This will help facilitate planning a request for
replacement requisition if the servicewoman is in a seagoing/deployable
billet."

Based on the sketchy details of this improbable and unexpected birth,
let me add some assumptions to help paint a more complete picture of
what happened.

The Marine claimed she was unaware of her pregnancy, so she probably did
not give herself or her baby proper pre-natal care, thereby putting
herself and her baby at greater risk. When she went into labor, I know
that the exceptional Navy medical professionals I have come to know and
love left nothing to chance to protect mother and baby.

Since the Boxer's medical facilities were not specifically prepared nor
configured for a birth, I am sure the medical personnel involved
performed many individual heroic acts to protect and safely bring forth
life at sea. Transporting mother and son to the hospital in Kuwait was
unplanned and showed some of the inherent flexibility in our forward-
deployed naval forces. What a lucky and special little boy!

Nevertheless, there were a number of inherent risks and dangers faced by
all associated with this event:

* What if the Boxer had been involved in amphibious combat operations
when the Marine went into labor?

* What if the Boxer's medical personnel and facilities had been fully
engaged with combat casualties when the Marine went into labor?

* Why are we willing to flirt with the possibility of having the Boxer's
medical and operational leadership diverted from their primary
responsibilities to deal with pregnancy and birth-at-sea issues?

* What if there had been complications with the birth, especially during
combat operations?

* Would combat casualties have taken precedence over the birth process
if resources were an issue?

* Can we afford the additional resources (time, equipment, personnel,
leadership decision-making, etc.) to make the special, impromptu
arrangements to ensure the safety of mothers and their babies on
combatant warships?

* Are we willing and able to deal with the breakdown of unit cohesion
when expectant and new mothers must be transported to facilities ashore
in compliance with Navy regulations?

According to the Times article, I agree with Elaine Donnelly, director
of the Center for Military Readiness, who said the birth should spur the
Pentagon to review its policies:

"President Bush should immediately request detailed information on
deployability problems and evacuations due to pregnancy during the
battle of Iraq," she said. "Today's Marine Corps and Navy cannot afford
policies that subsidize and, therefore, encourage irresponsible
behavior. This baby was born safely, despite obvious hazards, but
childbirth aboard warships is not an acceptable situation."


Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd USMC is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be
reached at .

"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
In case you missed the nano-second of news media attention it received
amid all the other major stories and issues from the war with Iraq, a
Marine staff sergeant assigned to the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer
gave birth to a healthy 7-pound boy while her ship was operating in the
Persian Gulf.

I guess the relationship between this and the NG was that it happened on a
boat(ship)?

Please notice I removed all newsgroup addresses but rec.boats.....

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:08:12 +0200, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

In case you missed the nano-second of news media attention it
received amid all the other major stories and issues from the war
with Iraq, a Marine staff sergeant assigned to the amphibious
assault ship USS Boxer gave birth to a healthy 7-pound boy while her
ship was operating in the Persian Gulf.

A nano-second was all the story deserved. Besides the marine being
unaware of her pregnancy, unusual but not unheard of, what's the big
deal?

"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...


Hmmm. What's worse? Baby, or a few .223 rounds to the abdomen & chest?
Perhaps she was able to do her job while pregnant.

What concerns ME is her level of intelligence (if any). Lack of menstruation
didn't mean anything to her? Hopefully she wasn't in charge of any
complicated or dangerous ordinance.

Well, after all, she IS a Marine!!!


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...

What concerns ME is her level of intelligence (if any). Lack of
menstruation
didn't mean anything to her? Hopefully she wasn't in charge of any
complicated or dangerous ordinance.

"clark neider" wrote in message
news:rMPZa.75497$zy.69350@fed1read06...
Well, after all, she IS a Marine!!!


So....since puberty, she's attributed the montly blood to.....too much spicy
food? :-)

Well, after all, she IS a Marine!!!

Some of these deployments are going
6, 7, 8, and 9 months.

Hmmmmmm. How does Ms. Marine explain to hubby that she's returning home
5 months PG at the end of a 7-month tour?

"Comrades in arms" indeed. Not all male soldiers and sailors have been
completely faithful when overseas, so it would be unlikely that female
servicepeople could be exempt from the same temptations.

I'm so old fashioned that I don't believe women belong in combat. The woman's
libbers think I'm nuts. That's OK, they don't like my opinion on abortion,
either. :-)

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...


Hmmm. What's worse? Baby, or a few .223 rounds to the abdomen & chest?
Perhaps she was able to do her job while pregnant.

What concerns ME is her level of intelligence (if any). Lack of menstruation
didn't mean anything to her? Hopefully she wasn't in charge of any
complicated or dangerous ordinance.

Just another dumb ******, obviously.

"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
In case you missed the nano-second of news media attention it received

We already had an extensive thread on sci.military.naval on the question.
Therefore your post is redundant and smacks of trolling, especially given a
similar post within the last few days.

tim gueguen 101867