{"id":2321780,"date":"2024-08-09T07:49:02","date_gmt":"2024-08-09T11:49:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/draft-our-daughters-legislation-is-a-trojan-horse-for-big-govt\/"},"modified":"2024-08-09T08:01:29","modified_gmt":"2024-08-09T12:01:29","slug":"draft-our-daughters-legislation-is-a-trojan-horse-for-big-govt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/draft-our-daughters-legislation-is-a-trojan-horse-for-big-govt\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8216;Draft Our Daughters&#8217; Legislation Is A Trojan Horse For Big Govt."},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fdraft-our-daughters-legislation-is-a-trojan-horse-for-big-govt%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2321780&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) have revived the &#8220;Draft Our Daughters&#8221; legislation,\u200b which proposes to automatically register all individuals aged 18-26 for the Selective Service, extending government oversight into\u200b the lives of young people across America. The bill, which passed with bipartisan support, includes a provision that\u200c appears to\u2064 exempt female \u200cdraftees from direct combat roles that \u2064were previously restricted to men until December 3, 2015. Critics argue that this &#8220;combat carve-out&#8221; is merely a ploy, as women would still \u200dbe required to \u200dserve wherever directed in a national emergency.<\/p>\n<p>The legislation references a 2015 decision\u200b that\u200b opened all\u200c combat roles to women, despite studies showing that mixed-gender units performed worse than all-male units in \u2064crucial combat tasks. Adjustments to fitness standards have been made, but significant disparities in performance between male and female recruits remain.\u2064 Opponents of the draft&#8217;s\u2063 modification contend that it <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/america-first-policy-group-backs-lawsuit-by-navy-seals-suing-biden-over-vaccine-mandate\/\" title=\"&#039;America First&#039; Policy Group Backs Lawsuit by Navy SEALs Suing Biden over Vaccine Mandate\">undermines military readiness<\/a> and fails to\u200d address the deeper\u200d issues of recruitment, suggesting that reinstating \u200bthe draft would provoke public resistance rather than resolve military personnel shortages.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, there \u2063are concerns that the new rules may transform the purpose of Selective \u2064Service registration from a wartime necessity to an instrument of \u2063social equity, which could complicate future military mobilizations \u2062by \u200dintroducing bureaucratic challenges and diluting \u2064combat effectiveness. Critics call for \u2064a reevaluation of these initiatives, \u2063questioning their constitutional \u200dvalidity and the implications for government regulation of citizens&#8217; lives.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), meeting behind closed doors, recently pulled &ldquo;Draft Our Daughters&rdquo; out of the legislative dustbin. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>SASC Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., &ldquo;sweetened&rdquo; this year&rsquo;s version with a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.armed-services.senate.gov\/imo\/media\/doc\/fy25_ndaa_committee_report.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">trade-off<\/a> deal purporting to exempt female draftees from being &ldquo;compelled to join combat roles that were closed to women prior to December 3, 2015.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>The defense bill would <a href=\"https:\/\/www.armed-services.senate.gov\/imo\/media\/doc\/fy25_ndaa_committee_report.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">automatically<\/a> register all persons of draft age (18-26) who are <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sss.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/WhoMustRegisterChart_1-16-24-1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">subject to Selective Service<\/a> law, extending government power into the lives of every young person in America while weakening military readiness. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The &ldquo;combat carve-out&rdquo; ploy was a false promise that should have fooled no one, but the measure passed on a 16-9 bipartisan vote.<\/p>\n<h2>Why a Combat Carve-Out for Women Is Not Credible<\/h2>\n<p>If the Senate wanted to exempt women from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/cotton-u-s-armys-affirmative-action-for-women-is-going-to-get-people-killed\/\" title=\"Cotton: U.S. Army\u2019s Affirmative Action For Women \u2018Is Going To Get People Killed\u2019\">direct ground combat<\/a>, they should have done so across the board, instead of approving a ruse involving Selective Service registration.<a><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Direct ground combat units, such as the infantry, armor, and special operations, attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action. The &ldquo;Draft Our Daughters&rdquo; legislation mentions the 2015 date when then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter denied Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford&rsquo;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/world\/us-military-opens-all-combat-roles-to-women-idUSKBN0TM284\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">formal request<\/a> that these specialties and units remain all-male.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The former commandant backed his request with three years of scientific research. According to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">summary<\/a> of field tests, fighting teams composed of average-ability men outperformed mixed-sex units with highly qualified women in 69 percent of evaluated tasks, including hiking under load and typical combat maneuvers.<\/p>\n<p>The research also confirmed significant differences in the physical strength, speed, and endurance of male and female Marines performing heavy-duty <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/u-s-made-javelin-missiles-rack-up-russian-tank-kills-in-ukraine\/\" title=\"U.S.-Made Javelin Missiles Rack Up Russian Tank Kills in Ukraine\">close combat<\/a> tasks. Carter ignored these inconvenient facts, assigning priority to &ldquo;diversity, equity, and inclusion&rdquo; (DEI) goals.<\/p>\n<p>Pentagon leaders promised that &ldquo;gender neutral&rdquo; standards would be identical for men and women in the combat arms. Reality intruded when initial Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) trials reported an <a href=\"https:\/\/news.clearancejobs.com\/2019\/10\/05\/army-combat-fitness-test-fiasco-slides-reveal-84-of-women-failing-acft\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">84 percent failure rate<\/a> among female trainees, compared to 30 percent among the men.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.cmrlink.org\/issues\/full\/army-scraps-genderneutral-standards-pushed-by-discredited-social-engineers\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Adjustments<\/a> in test requirements improved women&rsquo;s scores, but the Army has <a href=\"https:\/\/www.armytimes.com\/news\/your-army\/2022\/03\/23\/army-combat-fitness-test-debuts-with-major-changes-to-scoring-april-1\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">abandoned<\/a> sex-neutrality as its goal. A 2022 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.military.com\/daily-news\/2022\/03\/23\/gendered-scoring-no-more-leg-tucks-army-unveils-new-fitness-test-heres-what-you-need-know.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">RAND report<\/a> showed that only 52 percent of the women could pass the test, compared to 92 percent of the men, but Army policies still pretend that men and women are interchangeable in all ground combat specialties.&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Pentagon leaders who cannot define what a woman is cannot be trusted to define what &ldquo;combat&rdquo; is. The purpose of a military draft is to rapidly supply combat replacements in a war that threatens the very existence of the United States. It is oxymoronic to suggest that women must register for a possible future draft while excusing them from close combat.<\/p>\n<p>The defense bill combat carve-out gimmick changes nothing. Women drafted in a time of national emergency would have to serve where they are ordered to go &mdash; just like the men.<\/p>\n<h2>The Purpose of Selective Service Registration <\/h2>\n<p>Anyone who thinks that a reinstated draft would solve the military&rsquo;s recruiting crisis should reconsider. Government coercion would increase public resistance, and critical race theory (CRT) instructions in schools are undermining patriotism, which is essential for recruitment in the All-Volunteer Force.<\/p>\n<p>Nor would a draft deter endless wars. President Lyndon B. Johnson shipped thousands of draftees to fight oversees in Vietnam.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Heritage Foundation has made <a href=\"https:\/\/www.heritage.org\/defense\/commentary\/dont-draft-our-daughters-or-anyone-else?mkt_tok=ODI0LU1IVC0zMDQAAAGUf_Bqh64EZ3jTmAc-YMfHaizbDide\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a good case<\/a> for abolishing the system, but right now Selective Service is a low-cost insurance policy (<a href=\"https:\/\/news.usni.org\/2021\/08\/19\/report-to-congress-on-selective-service-and-draft-registration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">$26 million per year<\/a>) to back up the All-Volunteer Force. It does not exist to advance &ldquo;sex equity&rdquo; for less than compelling reasons.<\/p>\n<p>Under &ldquo;Draft Our Daughters,&rdquo; any future Selective Service call-up would be governed by &ldquo;equity&rdquo; mandates. Drafting equal numbers of men and women just to find the one woman in four who <em>might<\/em> meet physical requirements would increase administrative demands and jam the system at the worst possible time.<\/p>\n<p>Data and common sense suggest that sex-mixed conscripts would be weaker, slower, more vulnerable to debilitating injuries, less ready for speedy deployments, and less accurate with offensive weapons during combat operations.<\/p>\n<p>So why would any senator vote for the women&rsquo;s &ldquo;combat exemption&rdquo; sham? Either they don&rsquo;t understand the purpose of the draft, or they are pursuing an incremental &ldquo;national service&rdquo; agenda. A law requiring &ldquo;all persons&rdquo; to register advances the intent to change the purpose of Selective Service in incremental steps.<\/p>\n<p>Consider the 2020 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.volckeralliance.org\/sites\/default\/files\/attachments\/Final%2520Report%2520-%2520National%2520Commission.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">report<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cmrlink.org\/issues\/full\/mccainobama-commission-empaneled-to-promote-draft-americas-daughters-and-compulsory-national-service\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service<\/a>. The commission recommended Selective Service registration of women for the lamest of reasons: <em>&ldquo;The time is right.&rdquo;<\/em> It also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.federaltimes.com\/management\/2021\/05\/19\/special-commission-envisions-treating-public-service-more-like-military-service\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">promoted<\/a> a powerful interagency Council on Military, National and Public Service, which would grant millions of dollars to organizations coordinating national service mandates.<\/p>\n<p>Lumping together military conscription and mandatory national service seductively suggests that young people could avoid the former by accepting the latter.<\/p>\n<p>Once Americans become accustomed to automatic registration, a very expensive, controlling Big Government bureaucracy would use &ldquo;carrots and sticks&rdquo; to commandeer the lives of young &ldquo;national servants&rdquo; for politically correct reasons of the government&rsquo;s choice.<\/p>\n<p>Question: Where in the U.S. Constitution is there authorization for the federal government to run the lives of young people for less than compelling reasons?<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of military conscription because the Constitution authorizes Congress to raise armies. However, Congress is not empowered to conscript anyone for the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, or the National Commission-recommended &ldquo;Public Service Corps.&rdquo; <em><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Congress should not replace Americans&rsquo; presumption of freedom with a presumption of service, tracked in a Big Government system smacking of &ldquo;social credits.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<h2>&lsquo;Draft Our Daughters&rsquo; Is An Affront to Women, Who Are Opposed<\/h2>\n<p>Military women don&rsquo;t want to be forced into the combat arms on an involuntary basis, and a recent Rasmussen <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailysignal.com\/2024\/07\/02\/exclusive-poll-reveals-gender-divide-on-proposal-to-include-women-in-military-draft\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">national survey<\/a> found that 58 percent of female respondents were &ldquo;somewhat&rdquo; or &ldquo;strongly opposed&rdquo; to drafting women (22 percent and 36 percent, respectively).<\/p>\n<p>Capable, brave women have always volunteered to serve in times of national emergency, and it is an affront to suggest they would not do so again.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, the defense bill&rsquo;s backdoor &ldquo;Draft Our Daughters&rdquo; scheme could be approved during closed-door negotiations or rammed through during the post-election lame-duck session, even if Republicans win. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Consequential legislation such as this should be publicly debated, not dropped behind closed doors like an explosive device wrapped in camouflage. &ldquo;Draft Our Daughters&rdquo; legislation is unacceptable, and it has no place in law.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/if-conservatives-cant-get-good-laws-how-can-they-run-an-article-v-convention\/\" title=\"If Conservatives Can\u2019t Get Good Laws, How Can They Run An Article V Convention?\">independent public policy organization<\/a> that reports on and analyzes military and social issues.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) recently revived the &#8220;Draft Our Daughters&#8221; proposal during a private meeting. SASC Chairman Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, enhanced this year&#8217;s version with a compromise that claims to exempt women from being forced into combat roles that were previously restricted to men before December 3, 2015. The defense bill aims to automatically register all individuals aged 18-26 for Selective Service, extending government oversight into the lives of young Americans while potentially undermining military readiness. The so-called &#8220;combat carve-out&#8221; is misleading and should not have deceived anyone; nevertheless, it passed with bipartisan support in a 16-9 vote.<\/p>\n<p>If the Senate truly intended to exempt women from direct ground combat, they should have done so universally rather than approving a deceptive measure related to Selective Service registration. Direct ground combat units\u2014like infantry and special operations\u2014engage in offensive actions against enemies. The legislation references the pivotal moment in 2015 when then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter rejected Marine General Joseph Dunford&#8217;s request to keep these units male-only based on three years of scientific research indicating that all-male teams outperformed mixed-gender teams in various tasks.<\/p>\n<p>The research highlighted significant differences in physical capabilities between male and female Marines during demanding close-combat scenarios. Despite this evidence, Carter prioritized diversity goals over operational effectiveness. Pentagon officials assured that standards would be gender-neutral for combat roles; however, initial trials of the Army Combat Fitness Test revealed an alarming failure rate among female trainees compared to their male counterparts.<\/p>\n<p>While adjustments were made to improve women&#8217;s scores on these tests, the Army has since moved away from its goal of maintaining sex-neutrality in standards. A RAND report indicated only half of female participants could pass compared to nearly all males; yet policies still suggest men and women are interchangeable across all ground combat positions.<\/p>\n<p>The rationale behind requiring women to register for potential drafts while excluding them from close-combat roles is contradictory. In times of national emergency, drafted women would still be assigned wherever needed\u2014just like men.<\/p>\n<p>Those who believe reinstating a draft would resolve recruitment issues should reconsider; coercion may lead only to increased public resistance while educational curricula promoting critical race theory undermine patriotism essential for volunteer enlistment. A draft wouldn&#8217;t necessarily prevent prolonged conflicts either\u2014as seen during Vietnam when many draftees were sent overseas.<\/p>\n<p>Currently, Selective Service operates as an inexpensive backup system ($26 million annually) supporting an All-Volunteer Force without advancing gender equity under trivial pretenses. Under &#8220;Draft Our Daughters,&#8221; any future call-up would adhere strictly to equity mandates which could complicate administrative processes significantly by attempting equal numbers of male and female conscripts despite differing physical capabilities.<\/p>\n<p>Senators voting for this women&#8217;s &#8220;combat exemption&#8221; may either misunderstand the draft&#8217;s purpose or aim toward gradually implementing national service agendas through mandatory registration changes\u2014a move suggested by past commissions citing vague reasons like \u201cthe time is right.\u201d This approach risks merging military conscription with broader national service initiatives under government control over young people&#8217;s lives without compelling justification outlined by constitutional authority.<\/p>\n<p>Military personnel themselves largely oppose involuntary assignments into combat roles; recent surveys show significant opposition among women regarding drafting policies aimed at them specifically\u2014even though capable volunteers have always stepped up during crises when needed.<\/p>\n<p>Despite potential approval behind closed doors or rushed through post-election sessions regardless of party outcomes\u2014the controversial nature surrounding such legislation demands open debate rather than secret negotiations akin to concealing explosive devices within camouflage wrappers.&#8221; Draft Our Daughters&#8221; represents unacceptable policy direction lacking legitimacy within lawmaking processes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":504,"featured_media":2321781,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/5118305042_c807446437_k-e1723060560735.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[37652,37651,4762,32171,34399],"class_list":["post-2321780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-big-government","tag-draft-our-daughters","tag-legislation","tag-political-commentary","tag-trojan-horse"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/5118305042_c807446437_k-e1723060560735.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2321780","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/504"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2321780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2321780\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2321781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2321780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2321780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2321780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}