Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 5:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a situation that could have been avoided.
Spc. Hutchinson should not have joined the military if she wanted to start a family and be a single mom. She knew when she raised her right hand and took her oath that deployment was a given. Knowing this, she should have taken precautions to prevent preganacy. She became a soldier before she became a mom. Her responsibility was to the Army......mission first or don't sign on the dotted line!
There are woman who will deliberately get pregnant in an effort to avoid deployment. Those need to be chaptered out! Male soldiers have to leave their children behind and women should be no different if they choose to join the military. Equality....you want it?....Then accept it!

Posted by mickey (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I absolutely agree with LoyalAmerican. The girl should have had plan B..as working women can tell you, you never rely on just one person to watch your child. BUT inequality is present in this case..where was the father? And the FATHER's family? Why hasn't the government which this girl serves done more about making men and THEIR PARENTS responsible for the child their sons decide to bring into this world and abandon?

Posted by SouthernAttitude1 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Loyal American and mickey. She signed ... go. Tough, should have thought about that before she joined. She is no better than any man who leaves his family to serve our country. Guess the sign up bonus doesn't look so good to her now.

On the other hand, I don't believe women should serve in the military at all. They have a job here to do at home. I say this, even having an elderly female veteran in my family.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickey: I agree with you and understand your point. However, I am not sure it is the government's responsibility to force the parenting issue. The Army's job is to create soldiers, not parents. If a woman gets pregnant, hopefully she chooses a man to mate with that will support her pregnancy and be part of the child's life. We all need to understand the old saying, "Poor planning on your part does not create a crisis for me." A female soldier can get birth control faster than the speed of light. This particular soldier had 19 months to develop a plan after she chose to get pregnant. If she chose a bum to father the child, shame on her. The military needs to chapter her out and get on to the business of what they do best....train soldiers to protect America's interest!

Posted by teacup49 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Years ago when I was in a WAF you could not be pregnant or have children to enlist or remain in the military the reasoning at that time was you could not be a mother and give 100% of your loyalty and time to the military. The minute you became pregnant you were discharged. Over the years with the Woman's Movement the position of women in the military has change, jobs that there was no way a woman could have back then are now open and you can have a family and remain in the military. I personally thought that these were wonderful changes for women. Unfortunately this young woman did not have her priorities straight. As stated by LoyalAmerican if she wanted to get pregnant and have a family she should have waited she knew her chances of being deployed when she had this child.

Posted by Yankeegirl (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

She is to have a Family Plan in place when she joined the Army. If you don't have this then you get out of the Army, they will put you out. So point blank, she gets out and find another job that will let her come to work when she would like.

Posted by biscuitsandhoovergravy (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

" Baby's father is not in the picture". Now there is a shocking revelation. I feel for her...but she has to take responsibility for her actions. Like Loyal said charter her out and make her pay back any bonus or incentives she recieved and let her go back to the hood and start lookin for her next baby daddy.

Posted by rlb1940 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a nation where we stand behind our service men and women. The 'active' and 'reserve' status has plans, clergy, too numerous too mention here, for family. When this mother showed up for 'Roll Call' and not dodged, this child would have went on the government's monetary pay outs and benefits and received 'Quarters Allowance" and Monthly allotments checks. I know there was 'family' out there somewhere that would have helped, if nothing else, if like mine, to receive the check.............even the states and religious groups have childcare help in time of need. There is NO excuse, she should have went, it would have been better to have been in War and the child have a veteran for a parent, than the situation now, and the childs parent be in jail, thus this really messes up the childs future for sure...................

Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparently some of you didn't get the radical feminist memo. A father is needed only as a sperm donor. The important thing is that children are loved. The father isn't necessary for the physical, mental, emotional or financial health of the child(ren). After all, having children out of wedlock (what an old fashioned term) is so liberating.
She should be out of the military. Period.

Posted by mickey (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just don't think we hold men as accountable as we do women. On the other hand, I agree with all of the posts that state that she should've put her reproductive organs on hold until after her tour of duty..and if that wasn't possible, then she should have found an alternative substitute for her mother. What if her mother had agreed to watch the child..and then, the soldier had gotten killed..did she not have an alternative as her next of kin?

Posted by alrebel (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every enlisted member is required to have a child care plan in place in case of deployment. She did have one in place (her mother) which means that she was aware of the requirement. When her mother said she would not be able to care for the child it presented an "extenuating circumstance" which would have been handled by her superiors. If her immediate supervisor did in fact say that the child would have to be put into foster care then he was out of line. But she could have escalated the situation to her commanding officer who I SERIOUSLY doubt would have ordered the same senario. Not showing up for a deployment is a serious matter. Not having a solid plan in place for child care when you are in the Armed Forces is inexcusable. When you raise your right hand you are swearing loyalty to your country. That loyalty can't come only when it's convenient for you. If you can't perform your sworn duties in the military then you don't need to be in the military. It's very simple. She should be reprimanded and ordered to get a child care plan in place or be given a general discharge.

Posted by purelogic (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know why I did not join the military. This is a great country that I'm proud to take a part of, but family comes before country in my little book of life.

For those that have judged this woman harshly, remember that folks aren't perfect and mistakes are made by everyone just about everyday.

Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's right. We shouldn't judge anyone. Everyone should do what ever they please and whatever the consequences are.... well somebody else can suffer. Unless she was raped, she either chose to get pregnant or chose to do nothing to prevent it. If her birth control method of choice failed maybe she should have chosen abstinence. Works every time. So, she choses to have a child without a husband and now wants the Army to let her stay home while women who are married and have children are deployed. Nope, she is out. She has shown she has little respect for herself and doesn't really give a hoot (except to exploit the baby to get out of deployment) about the welfare of the child.

Posted by iamabookworm (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Purelogic: How did you become so reasonable? I'm with you, none of us know the details of this situation, and I would be hesitant to pass judgement without knowing said details. Thankfully I do not see things in only 'black & white' terms like some people. People do make mistakes, that's what makes us human. Empathy is the ability to place yourself in anothers shoes and imagine things from their perspective. Compassion is something you extend to someone you feel empathy towards. It's hard to ever reach the level of being compassionate without first being able to feel empathy. I think some people are simply unable or perhaps unwilling to empathize with the plight of others.

Posted by lawsuit (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i like mrs. nelson statement the father is not in the picture ,just because her divorce just got finalized 2 weeks ago after years of trying , we are still fathers stephanie its women like you and your "friends" that use poor inocent children to hurt fathers. back on this topic i agree with all the normal people she should have thought this over people she had a child , although i know alot of people out there leave older kids to fight war it is hurting for all, may god bless each and every soildier.

Posted by purelogic (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll bypass the whole "out of wedlock" topic.

Out of the military seems like a reasonable punishment to this little scenario. The military doesn't seem like the place for a 21 year old mom to myself anyway. But criminal charges seem like an extreme measure to me, and I wouldn't think that would be fair.

I agree actions must have consequences. I try to teach my child this just about everyday.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bookworm: You wrote, "None of us know the details of this situation"? You are incorrect. We know Spc. Hutchinson is in the military, has a child 10 month old child, is a single parent and had no Family Plan as required by the military. The mistake made by Spc Hutchinson was joining the military. As usual you refuse to look at facts or promote being responsible. The words you choose such as "plight, empathy, compassion" have nothing to do with this from her perspective! Hutchinson had a responsibility to do her job as a soldier and report to the airport for her flight to Afghanistan! If you want to show empathy or compassion, show it to the soldier Hutchinson was suppose to replace, who has been away from his or her family for 12-18 months and was packed and ready to come home. Thanks to Hutchinson's irresponsibility, some wife or husband and children were devastatingly disappointed when their soldier did not get to come home on schedule. Many military children have paper chains hanging on their wall, with one loop for each day mom or dad will be deployed. Each day they remove one loop and are able to see how much closer they are having their parent give them a real goodnight kiss. Do you have empathy and compassion for that little child who was so disappointed when they ran out of loops and were told they would have to add 60-90 more instead? I sure do! Hutchinson failed not only herself, she failed her fellow soldiers. Regrettably you do not have the ability to see all sides; being fair to all is not the way of a progressive. Also, at times, it is wiser to see things in black and white.

Posted by alrebel (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bookworm, Compassion and empathy are fine virtues, but what about accountability? The military is no place for people who play the "victim" role. That's why I say reprimand her formally for being AWOL (which was her decision), have her get a solid child care solution in case of future deployments (which is her responsibility), or give her a General Discharge for inability to perform her duties. In other words, accept accountability for her actions.

Posted by purelogic (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I recently had the task of reading through some essays that were wrote by folks explaining the moment that they felt they finally reached adulthood. By the way, most of these folks were in there 30's and beyond and not sprouted chickens.

Not too surprisingly, most lay claim to have viewed themselves reaching adulthood when they were the sole caretakers of a newborn child. Some had been married, owned a home, in the military, etc, but only when faced with the burden of childcare felt they were all grown up.

I don't think Ms Hutchinson's situation was all that different. She joined the military, was seen legally as an adult and had the full duty as an adult soldier, but yet menatally probably still a child. Did she let her fellow soldiers down? Probably so. Will they get over it? Probably so. Discharge, but not a criminal sentence and eternal damnation in the public's eye.

That's the way I see it.

Posted by simjack45 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anytime anyone joins the military they know they might be deployed. That is what the military does, fight to protect our freedom. Yet in the last several years I have seen, in the news, where both men and women, enjoying the benefits of the military who refuse to deploy. This could just be her excuse. She knew when she had her baby that her mother already had all she could care for. If anyone is not able or willing to deploy they should be put out and any military benefits denied.

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alrebel & purelogic, simjack45: as a vet, she did not sign up to get knocked-up, her choice, but, as alrebel says, she volunteered... she did offer a Plan A, a Plan B, her Mother dropped the plan for caring for her Mother( which she cared for before inlistment), a special needs sister, and a day-care for 14 kids...why did this fall thru? Her Mother could not take care of this in the first place...she entered the Army as a last escape from something...Mother backed her up and now, pay the piper...don't mean to sound mean, but, that is just the way it is...by the way, her daughter can come and stay with me for the duration of her deployment...and...I can pass any background check...but, she should be given a General Discharge, as should any Mother in her position. In Viet Nam, the pretty faces belonged to 'our' nurses...and our 'Doc's"...but there were so many cross-bloods that I can't count.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

outlaw11: Also it needs to be pointed out that as part of the 'Army family' there is the FRG. If there is a need, FRG meets it practically before you realize you have a need! I know numerous situations where a stay at home military wife has taken on the responsibility for caring for a child of a deployed, single soldier. It is just another way of how the military takes care of its own, just as you offered to do! Hutchinson had options......she chose to ignore them and a lot of people were adversely affected!!

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To follow up, all my life, women were women, they carried the baby, they ruled the house, they 'told' the men what to do...now, what in the hell are they doing in combat? Please give her a 'General Discharge'...!

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

outlaw11: I agree that no woman should be in combat. Not that she is incapable of fighting, but it is a natural instinct for a man to want to protect and shield a woman. In a war zone, that instinct could get a man killed needlessly!

Posted by rgodwin (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

outlaw11: I've often wondered how we got to a place in our society where we would even contemplate wanting our women in combat, much less actually putting them there. I'm sure there are many who are actually good soldiers and good at their jobs, but I was raised in a different time and will never think that women should actually be in combat unless they are fighting someone to protect their home. I know women have been in the military for years, but I just have more respect for women who respect themselves than to think they should be in combat.

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, LA & rgodwin, on a real note, I served where women were either nurses or admin, and I still to this day think that they should be in those places today. Now, with that said, the military opened up sometime in the early '80s, and my sister-in-law was one of the first airborne females...today, she just returned from Iraq and was moved up the rank to Colonel...22 years...and her husband is my younger brother, retired 1st Sgt, and I still, in her presence, open her door, pull out her chair, and defend her from anyone who openly defies her...but, believe me, she could kick some ass if she had to...to me, she is just a little sister...good to hear from you rgodwin...

Posted by realist (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When I got torn up in Iraq it was a female combat medic who drug me out. While she was trying to stop me from bleeding out she came under enemy fire, which is a war crime. After she got me out she went back and saved two more soldiers. She killed at least two insurgents with her side arm and I am certain she saved my life. I've seen men crack under that sort of pressure, but she remained cool and executed as she was trained.

Someone told me later she received a Bronze Star with a V, but if it had been up to me I'd have given her the Medal of Honor.

Posted by Patrick (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not female, young or Black and can't put myself in this woman's shoes. The culture she grew up in is foreign to my culture. I sure as hell wouldn't want here in my foxhole and depending on her to cover my back in a fire fight. Give her a dishonorable discharge and move on.

Posted by hometown_girl (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There's many opinions here on Spc Hutchinson's situation, but I feel compelled to have my say.

Spc Hutchinson's failure to report for duty is a crime. What if a cop refused to come to your aid during an attack because they had a baby at home? Would not this cop be shirking his/her responsibility to serve and protect? Isn't this pretty much what she was doing?

I understand about not wanting to leave her baby, however, when she signed on the line she agreed to do this. Before anyone starts assuming I don't understand, I will tell you I spent 23 years in the military, I had two children, and although I was married, he was military as well, and at no time did my spouse and I not have a Family care plan in place. We had 60 days after the birth of a child or after relocation to put one in place. It required someone in the local area who could care for them for a short time and then a person who could take the child for a long period and someone who could be a backup. Now I wasn't in the Army but I believe the same guidelines apply. The only fault of the Army was not following up, however, based on the fact Hutchinson was counting on her Mother, the Army likely wasn't aware of the situation until it was too late. In this instance shame on her Mother for not telling her sooner she couldn't handle the situation and shame on Hutchinson for not ensuring a reliable plan was in place to start with. As far as the Father, well, there are hundreds if not thousands of single Mothers and Fathers in the military without involved spouses, yet they ensure the family is taken care of with these plans. The only individuals who do not require one are dual parents with only one in the military.

Oh by the way we had to implement our plans on several occasions. I spent an entire year away from my kids and spouse. He would get called in at 4 in the morning while I was gone and often not get home until 8 or 9 p.m. The temporary care provider made sure our boys were taken care of. In 2003 when the Iraq War started our boys were with us overseas. Because we were next door to Iraq our families were shipped home...guess what? Being a dual military couple our children came back without us. Again, our family plan kicked in and it worked! Poor planning by Spc Hutchinson is not an excuse to avoid the responsibilities she willingly took on, both baby and job!