Bill introduced to expand draft registration to women


California representative Duncan Hunter and Montana representative Ryan Zinke have teamed up to introduce a bill to extend Selective Service registration requirement to women. Selective Service is the system by which wartime military conscription is carried out in the United States. To date, only men have been required to register, and only men have ever been drafted into the U.S. military. However, women’s eligibility for various areas of service has changed recently. The two representatives filed the Draft America’s Daughters act to force congressional debate on women’s role in the military after the expansion of women’s eligibility for combat.

In December, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter ordered an integration of every area of the services, opening previously unavailable combat roles to women who qualify. Representatives Hunter and Zinke, both veterans, have called the decision reckless and dangerous. They cite differing opinions among military leaders as one reason why debate on this issue is needed.

In an editorial written for the Marine Corps Times, Representative Hunter accused the administration of ignoring recommendations based on a Marine Corps independent study, as well as recommendations from the Special Operations community, garnered though surveys and focus groups.

Writers for The National Review and The Federalist both strongly criticized the idea of including women in the draft, labeling it dangerous and barbaric.

While the bill’s creators view it only as a catalyst to elicit debate, some on Capitol Hill are prepared to back it. This includes senator John McCain, also a veteran, a former POW, and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Stars and Stripes quotes McCain as calling the expansion “the logical conclusion of the decision to open combat positions to women.”

McCain’s statement echos those of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley and Marine Corps commandant Gen. Robert B. Neller. The logic may be in reference to the 1981 Supreme Court ruling on Rostker v. Goldberg, which cited differences in male and female military roles as reason to reject constitutional objection for excluding women from selective service registration requirements and by extension, the draft.

Some presidential hopefuls have also weighed in on the idea. In statements made during a debate a few days after the bill was introduced, Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio supported it. Senator Ted Cruz, who was not asked about the bill in the debate, later sent out a press release condemning the idea as immoral and calling political correctness dangerous. And while politicians contend with the question of whether to include women, the residents of the district where their operations are based have their own apparent opinions on the draft. The District of Columbia has the country’s lowest rate of compliance, at only 34%.


If you like what you read, please consider becoming Hannah Wallen’s patron. The Brigade runs on donations by readers like you.


Hannah Wallen
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Hannah Wallen

Hannah has witnessed women's use of criminal and family courts to abuse men in five different counties, and began writing after she saw one man's ordeal drag on for seven years, continuing even when authorities had substantial evidence that the accuser was gaming the system. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. Breaking the Glasses refers to breaking down the "ism" filters through which people view the world, replacing thought in terms of political rhetoric with an exploration of the human condition and human interactions without regard to dogmatic belief systems. She has a youtube channel (also called Breaking the Glasses), and has also written for A Voice For Men and Genderratic. Hannah's work can be supported at

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="154198">11 comments</span>

  • I’m gonna be straight forward about this, it burns continuously to have seen feminists launch a White Feather movement against men for not serving in wartime, while women were exempt. It also pisses me off that I have personally witnessed modern day White Feather incidents by feminists, particularly in Internet forums.

    However, as tempting as it is to laugh at this karma train, I hold fast to what I’ve always said – enslaving women doesn’t free men. The only good thing I can see coming out of the karmic payback and panic that will come of this turn in history, is that women will join men in vigorously opposing Selective Service. That is the only thing I want to come of this. I never want to see another man have to register for this, and I never want to see women thrown into the grinder, either. I don’t want payback, I want freedom from forced labor.

    • “However, as tempting as it is to laugh at this karma train, I hold fast to what I’ve always said – enslaving women doesn’t free men.”
      Perhaps not, but threatening them with seems to be finally getting legislators to consider repealing the requirement for men. “It’s not a problem till it’s a problem for women.” So make it a problem for women.

      • It is a sad thing when the only way that a legitimate problem for men can be addressed is when it is seen as a problem “for women”.

  • “In an editorial written for the Marine Corps Times, Representative Hunter accused the administration of ignoring recommendations based on a Marine Corps independent study, as well as recommendations from the Special Operations community, garnered though surveys and focus groups.”
    As did both the chief of Staff of the Army and the Marine Corps Commandant.
    By the by, what particular insight or authority do two members of very elite volunteer formations, quite separate from the rest of any of their forces, have on the subject of mass conscription?

  • In December 1941 Britain introduced conscription for women. A few went into the armed forces but most were sent to armaments factories and farms. So the type of work can be chosen.

    IMHO This bill will not become law but a future one will. Women wishing to look out for themselves will do better by getting clauses added that define women’s war work.

    Suggestions – nurses and medics, interrogation and searching of women plus administrative jobs including military head quarters.

  • This is one of these times when we have to stand up for women and say hell no, they won’t go. It’s a bad idea. Men and women are different, we need to recognize that, besides, I don’t think it is right men should be drafted unless to protect the home soil and not a foreign land.

    • Either a draft is okay, or it is not. If people are not willing to voluntarily defend their home soil, then really, what is there to defend?

      All people are different, why not specify the draft to a BMI & weight range? That may be a more accurate tool than specifying by sex. Still it begs the same question, why should only one set of people be called upon (forcefully) to give their lives for ‘their’ country?

      Note: “Equal but different” is an empty sophism, just as “separate but equal” was when used to defend the Jim Crow laws.

        • I think you forgot a ‘not’ in the first sentence.

          As far as the draft, let’s assume I am not arguing for it, but instead making a case that if we are to have it, it should apply equally to all citizens, not just a single sex. With that said, there should be no draft in a Democratic & Capitalist based society. If we can not solicit a proper number of volunteers, we are failing at the ideals of both systems (e.g: Supply & demand; rule of the majority).

          As far as your personal lack of faith in the govt, I dont disagree with your point of view, but by itself it is an arbitrary argument. Of course the need for a draft at all, could in itself demonstrate a lack of faith in our government by many. (People often seem less than willing to voluntarily fight for someone or something they lack faith in.)

          • “but (not) in the same roles as men.” Thanks for catching me on that.

            I believe the all volunteer service has been used and abused and it used to make me angry when people would just so easily say “well they volunteered” Recruiters lie, everyone has ever served knows that. Kids volunteered because they needed a job and were most likely lied to by their recruiter. Most boys volunteer so that they could find a way in this world to someday afford a house, wife and children. This is our dream. But today, the wife has to now work because of inflation and boys volunteer mostly because they can’t find a job and second, to pay for college. The world is not fair, especially for boys. And fuck the feminists for not realizing this major huge discrepancy. That said, I would support the draft seeing how badly the volunteers have been abused. I was a young lad when the draft was going on. Compared to the all volunteer military, it wasn’t that bad. I think they only had to do two years of battlefield operations and they were done with the hard part and with that, their college was paid for.

            As discussed earlier, women would not do so good in battlefield conditions. Its a hardship to the women and it puts the men in danger. I have to say no to drafting woman. We have to recognize that men and women are different and we have to be practical.

            I think the solution to an unfair draft or even a war not based on the defense of the homeland is to protest for peace. But if it is in fact a war to protect the homeland, again, women in the battlefront endanger men. Draft them as support if we must.

  • It will be interesting if this intended “poison pill,” like the amendment including sex in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, boomerangs on its initiators.

    An anti-militarist I worked with years ago told me that during the Vietnam era, he and like-minded activists had opposed Selective Service’s college deferment because they saw it as essentially an exemption for white middle-class men. I think we should oppose this (female) exemption on the same grounds.

By Hannah Wallen

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather