Posted on May 26, 2022

Soldiers Facing Discrimination from State Laws Could Request Transfers Under Draft Army Policy

Steve Beynon, Military.com, May 19, 2022

The Army is circulating a draft policy tweak that would specify that soldiers can request to move if they feel state or local laws discriminate against them based on gender, sex, religion, race or pregnancy, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the plans.

The guidance, which would update a vague service policy to add specific language on discrimination, is far from final and would need approval from Army Secretary Christine Wormuth. But if enacted, it could be one of the most progressive policies for the force amid a growing wave of local anti-LGBTQ and restrictive contraception laws in conservative-leaning states, where the Army does most of its business.

The policy would ostensibly sanction soldiers to declare that certain states are too racist, too homophobic, too sexist or otherwise discriminatory to be able to live there safely and comfortably.

“Some states are becoming untenable to live in; there’s a rise in hate crimes and rise in LGBT discrmination,” Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, an advocacy group, told Military.com. {snip{

If finalized, the new rules would clarify what situations would entitle a soldier to a so-called compassionate reassignment. Right now, those rules are vague but are mostly used for soldiers going through family problems that cannot be solved through “leave, correspondence, power of attorney, or help of family members or other parties,” according to Army regulations.

{snip}

The sources who reviewed drafts of the potential policy had different interpretations of what the change would mean. In practice, however, reassignment to a new installation wouldn’t happen overnight, and it would be almost impossible for a woman to find out she’s pregnant, have her command approve a transfer, complete the move and then be able to seek different reproductive care during a pregnancy.

Last week, Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston, the service’s top enlisted leader, told lawmakers that the force is considering some response to the end of Roe v. Wade, though it’s unclear whether that is a separate policy being mulled by Army planners.

“The answer is yes, we are drafting policies to ensure we take care of our soldiers in an appropriate way,” Grinston told a House Appropriations Committee subpanel. “There are drafts if it were to be overturned, but that would be a decision for the secretary of the Army to decide the policy.”

However, the policy tweak shared with Military.com was written in April, weeks before news broke of a draft decision overturning the landmark abortion ruling, according to an Army official with direct knowledge of the situaiton.

At least 13 states have so-called trigger laws that will immediately outlaw abortion if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned. Additional GOP-controlled states are expected to follow suit with similar legislation. Meanwhile, some state lawmakers are considering restricting contraception such as IUDs and Plan B. Some officials, like Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, haven’t ruled out an outright ban on contraception. Idaho State Sen. Brent Crane, who is the state’s vice majority leader, said he would be open to legislation banning some birth control methods.

Currently, Tricare, which covers 9.6 million troops and veterans, covers IUDs, contraceptive diaphragms, prescription contraceptives and surgical sterilization, which could all be severely curtailed if states go forward with banning or limiting birth control as many service members and their families receive medical care paid for by Tricare off base.

The Army’s consideration of a policy to protect soldiers from discriminatory laws is part of a wider Defense Department campaign to start shielding service members from increasingly divisive laws and rhetoric from state-level lawmakers.

Multiple Defense Department and veterans advocate sources have told Military.com the other services are considering similar policies, but it is unclear how far those discussions have advanced.

{snip}