let's be clear what is at issue here. The Department of Defense has said if a servicemember requires reproductive healthcare for themselves or for a member of their family, care that is not available in the location where the member is currently stationed, the member can request time away from the base to travel elsewhere for treatment. As Pentagon leaders have testified, military commanders respect the privacy of servicemembers and do not request information about the specific medical treatment or who it is for. The Senator from Alabama doesn't like that. He is worried that a servicemember might--might--be seeking an abortion for themselves or for a family member. And he doesn't think the Department of Defense should participate in that in any way. Fine. The Senator from Alabama can advocate for a bill to invade the medical privacy of every single servicemember. He can advocate for a bill that requires every commanding officer to do what no private employer can do, and that is to rifle through a servicemember's personal medical information. The Senator from Alabama can seek to change Federal law so that a commanding officer interrogates a servicemember with questions like: Do you need time off because you are having trouble getting pregnant? Has your wife had a miscarriage? How many weeks pregnant are you? Was your daughter raped? These are not questions that commanding officers want to ask, nor should they be authorized or required to ask them.…
Share
More from Elizabeth Warren
The consequences of losing access to your local pharmacy can be immeasurable. Think about veterans with complex medical needs, who rely on the personalized care from their local pharmacist – someone who will check for drug interactions…
At the stroke of midnight, a huge bipartisan bill to lower housing costs became law without the President's signature. Why did President Trump sit on the landmark housing bill for more than 2 weeks? Maybe because there was nothing in it…
What the data show is the American people picked up about 95 percent of the cost of those Trump tariffs. They’ve paid an average of $1,700.
In order to uphold the Antitrust Division’s responsibility to protect competition and consumers, we urge DOJ to closely scrutinize the proposed Fox-Roku deal under antitrust law and seek your commitment that the review will be conducted…





