USA Women Drafted, Fight In Wars As Conscripts

Philip

Donor
SCOTUS already ruled that drafting solely men is perfectly constitutional, although that was under the Due Process clause. But, given that the 14th was also in force at the time, I don't think a lawsuit under Equal Protection would have any more success:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg

First, the Court's reasoning was based on the exclusion of women from combat roles. Women had been serving in combat roles for a decade in the navy and air force since the early nineties. The government will need to come up with a new argument. Combine that with the increase dependence on non-front line positions, I'm not sure what the government will argue.

Second, in the twenty years since that ruling, the role of women in public service had greatly increased. Justice Marshall's dissent concerning equal civic duty will carry more weight.

Third, as opposed to 1981, there is an ongoing war. The damage done to a draftee in 2003 is far greater than the damage done by requiring someone to register for a hypothetical draft in 1981. This is where equal protection becomes significant.

Fourth, a suit in 2003 will draw support from women's groups advocating for greater opportunity in the military. I can see support coming as well from groups that want homosexuals to be able to serve openly in the military.

The Court will hear the case. Without knowing the government's argument, it is hard to predict the exact outcome. However, I'm having a difficult time coming up with a replacement for the combat exclusion argument.
 
Last edited:
To have women be as prominent in combat roles as men in the 19th and 20th centuries, you'd have to have:

1) Either an insane and/or visionary leader or

2) A country so desperate for manpower to resort to drafting women in great numbers

And it has to work too, because if the female soldiers are defeated it'd only confirm the pre-existing opinions on the matter of that time's society.
 
Top