Struck v. Secretary of Defense

A Legal Case That Could Have Been Roe v Wade

Hello, lovely soul,

I know that I have posted on the blog that posts would be twice a month and every other week. However, with the news that Roe v Wade is threatened to be overturned, I felt the need to continue my activism in not just videos posted on my Tiktok/Facebook/Twitter/Instagram.

I recently learned about the Struck v. Secretary of Defense case. While many argue that Roe v Wade makes abortions legal, I would like to clarify that it does not do that. It protects all those living in the United States privacy to their own decisions – still doesn’t stop doctors from refusing to sterilize women without having kids or being married but it’s the gist of it.

In the case of Struck v. Secretary of Defense, Captain Susan R. Struck of the United States Air Force fought against the military’s ability to force women who were pregnant while serving to have abortions.

Yes, you just read that correctly. Up until this case was argued, the United States Military had the ability to force a woman to have an abortion or they would be discharged from the military. Talk about pot calling the kettle black, right?

According to this USA Today article, Captain Struck had joined the Air Force in 1967 and found herself pregnant three years later in 1970 as the US entered the “war that was never officially recognized as a war” aka Vietnam War. When leadership discovered she was pregnant, they recommended that Captain Struck opt for a honorable discharge. Yes, you just read that correctly. They recommended that a captain in the Air Force opt for an honorable discharge due to pregnancy.

Captain Struck had three years built into her military career, and they wanted her to throw it away because she wanted to keep the viable pregnancy. She had planned to put the child up for adoption and use her leave for the pregnancy. Despite this, Captain Struck was still dismissed from the Air Force.

However, based on the information from Case Text, Captain Struck was set to be dishonorably discharged officially on October 28, 1970, but the sitting District Judge gave a 24-hour stay order to October 29. Within those 24 hours, an application for temporary stay was submitted and subsequently denied. In addition to this, a Court of Appeals judge stayed the discharge longer until Captain Struck’s motion for a preliminary injunction could be considered. On December 7, 1970, the Court of Appeals denied her motion of temporary relief, but again stayed her discharge orders for another ten days. It was on December 17, 1970, ten days after the decision, that Justice Douglas entered an order to stay her discharge until a final decision could be made in regard to the merits in the US District Court of the Western District of Washington.

Prior to Captain Struck’s pregnancy, in February 1970, the courts had actually ruled that the Air Force Regulation 36-12 was actually constitutional!

Captain Struck used the fact that this was actually unconstitutional in her arguments. Mind you, the Air Force’s argument was that as she was active duty in Vietnam that it made absolutely logical sense that it would make more sense to discharge her. What if the hospital she was in was blown up and the stress caused her to miscarry? Well, then she’d be a patient alongside the multitude of others in the hospital. When you truly think about it, it isn’t sound logic, as other nurses or personnel that would be helping in these field hospitals could also be hurt to a degree that they become patients as well. So they kind of screwed the pooch on that logic train in my opinion but they continued on to argue that it would be imprudent of them to let a pregnant woman be in the field.

Here’s my little interjection on this: then bring her back stateside and she can train more nurses for the field.

Captain Struck also argued that the regulation deprived her of the due process protected under the fifth amendment. This was stated as well as not being a logical argument on her end. That the regulation was not in conflict with the fifth amendment’s due process clause.

Her arguments continued, stating that it’s economically unwise to pull her from duty due to all the funds and hours sent on her training, as well as the fact that she hadn’t missed a single day of service during her pregnancy. The argument was again dismissed because again she had been pulled from the active field.

The next and most viable argument is that the regulation is discriminatory. Which in truth it is. but you have to remember women have always been seen as second class citizens. Regulation 36-12 did not apply to men. In the Air Force Manual, it blatantly stated that if an Air Force Officer’s wife was pregnant, “port call orders will not fall during the period six weeks before or six weeks after expected delivery.”

The court actually stated in the case arguments the following:

“We think there is a palpable difference between an expectant father and an expectant mother as regards the question of whether the progress of the expectancy, or its culmination, will, or may, or probably will disable the soldier from performing the duties of a soldier. As to the expectant father, his leave, or the deferment of his post call orders, are not irrevocable, we suppose, if his performance as a soldier is needed.”

Tell me our country really has not respect for women’s rights without telling me that they have no respect for women’s rights.

She also argued that this was against her freedom of religion (first amendment that that GOP and republicans love to flaunt so much!) because the only options are either to be honorable discharged or terminate her pregnancy.

Although the court of appeals did side on the Air Force’s side in this case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg prepared to take this to the US Supreme Court to fight for Captain Struck. It would have been an interesting case to play out in the hands, but the U.S. solicitor general managed to persuade the Air Force to waive the discharge and change the pregnancy regulation.

The case ended up being filed for dismissal due to it now being a moot point.

If this had been the case to be heard before the Supreme Court prior to Roe v Wade, we probably wouldn’t be looking at an overturning ruling. However, hindsight is 20/20.

I hope that if you are a conservative reading this, that you realize it’s not just the choice of abortion that is at stake. It is your choice to make the decision regarding your body in general that will be up for grabs if you have a uterus. Overturning Roe v Wade opens the door for them to take away more rights of anyone that is female or was assigned female at birth.

Light & Love,