Women Sue Pentagon for Right to Fight in Combat
It's the second suit this year
By Newser Editors and Wire Services
Posted Nov 27, 2012 6:58 PM CST
Plaintiff Zoe Bedell, who is a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps reserves.   (Ben Margot)

(Newser) – Four female service members filed a lawsuit today challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, hoping the move will add pressure to drop the policy just as officials are gauging the effect that lifting the prohibition will have on morale. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, is the second one this year over the 1994 rule that bars women from being assigned to ground combat units.

"I'm trying to get rid of the ban with a sharp poke," said Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, who was among the plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit and was injured in 2007 when her Humvee ran over an improvised explosive device in Iraq. Hunt and the other three women said the policy unfairly blocks them from promotions and other advancements open to men in combat. A Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department was making strides, noting that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has opened about 14,500 combat positions to women. "Not enough," said the ACLU lawyer handling the case.

View 1 more image

Copyright 2016 Newser, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. AP contributed to this report.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Women in Military Sue Pentagon for Right to Fight Combat is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 101 comments
Nov 29, 2012 5:06 PM CST
If women want to kill that bad. Give them guns and let them at it.
Nov 28, 2012 7:38 PM CST
Women are physically weaker; that's a simple fact, the discussion of which is not welcome in social conversation. But war isn't a social enterprise. There are a thousand and one jobs that a woman can do near the front lines just as well as a man, and probably many they can do better. Manpacking gear and weapons isn't one of them. They are ideal as aircraft pilots (or anything on an aircraft, actually), tank gunners, drivers and mechanics and and... hell, the list just goes on and on. Pretty much any position that lets a woman use machinery to compensate for the inherent strength disadvantage is fair game, as are all positions that require use of the mind rather than the body (include leadership positions above pretty much the squad level), and all positions that have a limited enough physical component that the strength disadvantage doesn't matter. Just don't strap a hundred pounds of gear to a hundred pound woman and expect her to be able to run as fast or as far as a man can, because it's not going to happen.
Nov 28, 2012 6:07 PM CST
Was it Forest Gump that said: Stupid is as Stupid does? These woman have to have their heads so far up the back door chute they can't see the colon for the brown dirt! They desire to get themselves blown up and killed with RPG's etc so....put em on the front line and promote em! Some people are so thick! Who in the H E Double Hockey sticks would voluteer to go into battle w/bullets and missles flying and all that! What idiots!!! You job, is NOT to lead but to be in service related tasks! that is how and why you are made!! There is a PHYSICAL differance...I have seen what women do in the military! it usually takes two woman to do what one man will and can do!! (in Physical matters) i have seen how the P.R.T are rigged downward for the ladies and the time requirements are degraded for the same!! I will NOT debate you on this: I have been there and done THAT so..keep you rhetoric to yourself!!!