NCFM NOTE: One has to wonder if the likes of Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Senator Tom Cotton, Congresswoman Vicky Hartlzer and the few others in Congress who railed against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provision know that women are not only in the military, but they are also – and have been for many years – in combat positions. Women warriors too have sacrificed, and done the job. It is an insult to all women in the military not to allow women to sign up for Selective Service with the same rights and responsibilities of men.
________________________________________________________
In a stunning turnaround, this month, Congress drops female draft registration, reported Politico after the measure was removed from the NDAA for 2022. [1] Stunning, maybe even if you are not a Men’s rights activist.
The seminal case National Coalition for men vs. Selective Service System was brought to and won in the Southern District Court of Texas by our brilliant legal team with NCFM Vice-President Marc Angelucci, Esq. at the helm. After the 5th Circuit court of Appeals reversed our victory we teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Hogan Lovell’s Law Firm for our appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Basically, the Court agreed with our arguments but declined to grant our request preferring to pass the buck back to Congress. The ACLU attorney was Ria Tabacco Mar, and she did a stellar job.
Ever since the Supreme Court declined to hear our lawsuit on whether the draft registration was unconstitutional on the grounds of sex discrimination, the issue became highly politicized. [2a] And among the general public, the sentiment was frankly anti-male. The justification for declining given by the Supreme Court was that Congress was very likely to add women to Selective Service registration with NDAA 2022. However not a word was uttered about the obvious violation of the Equal protection clause. For a while Congress seemed like it was on the right path, especially with the prod from the Supreme Court statement penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor [2b].
In July the Senate armed services committee voted to add women to draft registration, a measure proposed by Senator Jack Reed. [3] Immediately there was negative response by some in Congress and anti-war feminists. The two main arguments from the two camps in response were respectively that 1) – only men should be required to register because they are more fit (read more disposable) for combat than women, and on the other side that 2) – we should indeed achieve gender equality but not by including women but by abolishing the draft registration entirely. This would be an admirable goal if it was politically feasible. Selective service registration has bipartisan support in Congress, so it’s unrealistic to think it will be repealed anytime soon. The only path to equalization right now seems to be adding women to the program. Senator Tom Cotton vowed right then he would work to remove the measure until it got to Biden’s desk for signature.
Even though public opinion seemed not in favor of adding women to SS registration, things seemed to be moving in the right direction yet again when in September the House Armed Services committee voted to add women with a bipartisan bill proposed by Democrat congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan and sponsored by Republican congressman Michael Waltz.[4] This is when the opposition really started to mobilize.
During the House armed services committee session Congresswoman Vicky Hartlzer expressed her opposition to adding women to the program. Congressman Chip Roy started the hashtag #dontdraftourdaughters, and kept tweeting and speaking against adding women to SS on news channels. [5] He channeled the idea that women forcibly dying in war is a unique kind of abomination.
On the feminist anti female-draft side Code Pink and others claimed the draft is a tool of the Patriarchy and women have more reasons not to register than do men. “True equality is when the draft is abolished for everyone” they wrote. [6] The problem with this argument is that there is never an antidote for the male side of this i.e., there is no mass movement to end draft registration for men. Saying the draft is abominable for one group of people but completely acceptable for another is Supremacy.
Nowhere in these statements did they talk about the legal discrimination and hardship that men have to endure for not registering, instead they made the whole conversation about female oppression. Even though it’s men who have to risk being drafted for war against their will. Anti-draft activist Edward Hasbrouck went so far as to say that “draftees are not the primary victims of the male only draft but rather the population against which they are weaponized, often women and children” [7] Never mind those draftees are mainly weaponized against other draftees. This argument is deeply degrading to men if we are being honest.
There were also petitions with signatures being sent out to Congress to drop the measure of adding women to SS in the meantime. Of course, there was a bit of lip service given to repealing the draft for men with Bill H.R.5492 by Congressman Peter DeFazio being promoted as if it had any chance of passing now. [8]
But again, Congress seemed to be moving in the right direction when the full House of representatives passed their version of the NDAA in late September [9]. It seemed like women were finally going to be added to the Selective service system. And the odds were in favor of that until the US Senate came into the picture.
The NDAA has to be passed by both the House and Senate before it’s sent for signature to the President. However, the Senate went into a deadlock over the Build Back Better act and China – related legislation. By then however it was too late. Senator Chuck Schumer put the NDAA for cloture vote on November 15, very late compared to recent years, and it was clear that the schedule for the Senate to pass the NDAA before the end of 2021 would be very tight.
There were disagreements between Republicans and Democrats and of course the cloture vote was moved to after the Thanksgiving holidays. Senate resumed the NDAA consideration but this time the package of the amendments that would be debated was the hurdle that ultimately caused Republicans to filibuster the whole NDAA bill. [10] This meant that instead of the regular Conference meeting between the House and Senate hashing out differences in both versions, they had to draft up and approve a whole new document in an “unofficial” Conference.
And of course, with time pressing the bill and opposition from a handful of Republican Senators lead by Senator Josh Hawley, the measure to include women was dropped. [11] According to Politico, it was sacrificed for a measure to completely re-do the way sexual violence is prosecuted in the Military. The measure would task independent military lawyers with prosecuting sexual assault cases. That would remove the authority that commanders, who are typically not lawyers, have in making decisions on charging and trying their own troops. So, the largely Democratic-led effort to include women in the Selective service registration had to be abandoned. [12 a, b]
The Supreme Court of the United States refused to decide the case, and passed the buck once again back to Congress. Interestingly, in our Petition for Certiorari to SCOTUS, we emphasized that we believed Congress might fail to act if the Court declined to favorably decide our case. [13] Thus, it appears the issue of women being required to sign up for Selective Service may have been completely scrapped from the political agenda. Some politicians say they will try to include legislation next, but we shall see.[14]
To be crystal clear, even though the primary burden with Selective Service registration falls on men, BOTH men and women are being locked in their gender role when we keep the men-only requirement. Right now, it might seem women have it better off, but excluding them from Draft registration sends the message that their service is not as vital as that of a man. As for men, it puts the sole burden of protection the nation in times of need on them. [15]
Getting rid of the sex-specific Selective Service registration requirement will liberate everyone.
Plamen Lesev.
NCFM Liaison, Bulgaria
Citations:
1 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829
- a- https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/07/supreme-court-rejects-case-challenging-male-only-draft-registration.html
- b https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_new_i4ek.pdf
3 – https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/senate-democrats-propose-women-military-drafts-500153
4 – https://www.rollcall.com/2021/10/05/congress-moves-toward-requiring-women-to-register-for-the-draft/
6b – https://www.afsc.org/newsroom/quaker-and-feminist-orgs-denounce-vote-drafting-women
7 – https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002618.html
8 – https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2509?s=1&r=58
10 – https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/29/mcconnell-defense-bill-amendment-votes-523472
12a – https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/ndaa-women-draft-dropped-523829
One of the people with knowledge of the move said the provision was stripped as a trade-off so Republicans would accept reforms to the military justice system.
b- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/15/senate-vote-military-sex-assault-justice-499785
The Selective Service System claims this time is different because the matter is “under active consideration.” Opp. 15. But Congress has “active[ly]” considered extending registration to women or ending registration of men in every Congress since 2000 (with one exception) and has not done so. See, e.g., S. 1139, 117th Cong. (2021); H.R. 5492, 116th Cong. (2019);7 S. 3041, 114th Cong. (2016); H.R. 4478, 114th Cong. (2016); H.R. 1509, 114th Cong. (2015); H.R. 748, 113th Cong. (2013); H.R. 747, 113th Cong. (2013); H.R. 1152, 112th Cong. (2011); H.R. 5741, 111th Cong. (2010); H.R. 393, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 4752, 109th Cong. (2006); H.R. 2723, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 163, 108th Cong. (2003); S. 89, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 3598, 107th Cong. (2001).4 Congress’s track record does not inspire confidence.
Page 6, 7
15 – https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-928/165657/20210108100535699_NCFM%20Petition%20-%20Final.pdf
“The obligation to defend one’s country is a central attribute of citizenship; denying that obligation to women treats them as less than full citizens simply by virtue of their sex.”|
Page 28
Limiting registration for compulsory government service to men places a significant burden on men alone, simply because of their sex, with wide-ranging consequences for both individuals and society. It also perpetuates pernicious stereotypes about the “proper” roles of men and women. That is precisely what the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection guards against
Page 30
NCFM Bulgarian Liaison Plamen Lesev, Draft for Thee but not for me. US Supreme Court and Congress endorse Male Disposability
In The Ukraine, before December 2021 nurses and a few other medical occupations were required to register with the military. After December 2021 the list of occupations was expanded to include most occupations including Librarians, journalists, lawyers hotel and hospitality workers etc. and yet women are still streaming over the borders, yes many of them are caring for children and I don’t have a problem with that, children must be protected. But what about the rest, did they register, if they did, will they return if they are required? if they didn’t will penalties be applied. apparently a fine applies for not registering and a larger fine if they don’t respond up when called up. On the other hand, Men, in peace time, are not allowed to get a passport until their army service is completed, and not allowed out of the country anyway now the state of emergency has been declared.
If the SSS is expanded to include females I think the same will happen, there will be no responsibility or obligations attached, its an equality they don’t want….
Frank.
Interesting possibility! Thank you.
Frank, in Ukraine, women protested the draft registration for women and i Zelensky responded to them that they considered their concerns and decided to drop the obligatory element for women. So thats why women can leave and are not drafted.
Hi Plamen,
I dug a little deeper and came across the petition you spoke of, yes it received 37,000 signatures in 6 days, 12,000 more than is required for it to be considered. In his reply he is quoted as saying.
“Having considered this petition, the president noted that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state is the business of the entire Ukrainian people, citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law, and there can be no privileges or restrictions based on sex,”
But then asked the minister for Defence to reduce the number of occupations required to register.
Frank.
Yes. Equality for men in the area of military conscription is absolutely imperative!
Plamen why is it not as easy for men too???
Most Men don’t care for their rights or each other unfortunately. This has to change. The NCFM is helping with this change.
Yes Plamen it is good that the NCFM is helping. Unfortunately the real change which is needed, as well as legal, is in childhood I believe. A different and healthy socialization is needed. If men don’t care about each other as you say and this is true, it is going to always be a struggle and hard to raise the funding needed for a lawsuit for instance for the all-male draft. And I believe that if this “law” remains that Nothing else matters. All other issues are “lower” issues while the “central” issue remains locked in place. If mentality of society of viewing men as disposable and expendable does not change any so called “progress” which is made in men’s rights will only be temporary and incomplete at best and totally a failure at worst. The fact that this selective service can now remain blatantly sexist (and ageist) is to me very scary as equal protection is so thoroughly violated. I don’t expect anything from Congress or politicians but the fact the courts are allowing this terrifies me. Since it is wrong towards men it passes but who will be the future victim?? I pray one day for the sun to shine. Peace and thanks.
Agreed.
Hello. Hope you are well. I just wanted to ask, if I may, the NCFM: Is there anything that we who feel passionately about seeing the end of the all-male draft can do to help towards continuing this “journey” through the courts and up to again the Supreme Court? (Please don’t say contact Congress for it is obviously not going to work) I was just wondering if you will continue to try or if you have given up? And also, if I may ask, what are the main obstacles or obstacle to continue? Is it discouragement? Lack of Desire? Takes too long? Not important enough? Or is money the sole issue? Or do you think it just won’t EVER be successful? I do ask honestly out of interest. If money is the issue, may I ask, out of ignorance, is it thousands of dollars needed or hundreds of thousands? Sorry for the long mail but I believe still this is the CENTRAL issue to men before all else. Peace.
First, our legal team has decided to start discussions again this October. The NCFM v Selective Service case is for all purposes dead. However, from our discussions with the ACLU it seemed to us that they are still interested in the issue, but perhaps not with us as a plaintiff. Moving forward has nothing to do with lack of desire, taking too long, or not important enough. All of which are ridiculous if you consider how long we were committed to this important issue. Money is always an issue. Depending on what happens when we again begin serious discussions in October money, or the lack thereof, may indeed prevent us from moving forward. To early to tell… good question though…thank you. Harry Crouch, President
Mr. Crouch thanks so much for responding to me. May I ask just out of curiosity, why the ACLU, which thankfully seems still interested in pursuing the all-male draft registration, is not perhaps interested in having the NCFM as plaintiff? It seems the match was good with your case. Is it that they would rather have a woman plaintiff? And if this is the case do you think in your experience that it would have a better chance for the Supreme Court to take it simply because it affects women rather than men? Or since women don’t have to register do you think it is lesser of a successful chance? Finally, since money is an issue, I did ask, simply out of my ignorance, how much money about does a lawsuit like this normally cost? Is there anyway to take up a collection from those of us interested or are the figures non-practical to so do. Please know I only ask out of concern and desire and am willing to donate as my limited means allow. Peace and again thanks for all you do. With Respect
My personal opinion is… near the end of our relationship the ACLU’s Texas chapter did a press release way beyond the scope of our agreement. They used the opportunity to promote other concerns with which NCFM either disagreed, has no position on, or avoids like the plague. I told them in no uncertain terms that we did not appreciate being used. IMO. Harry
Dear Mr. Crouch/NCFM:
Hello and hope you are well. Mr. Crouch thanks for responding to me but I was wondering if you could address my question about the money “issue.” If this is the main obstacle to bringing a new lawsuit in the future regarding the Selective Service, is there anything that could be done to fundraise or do you just encourage those of us who care about this issue to donate to you? I was just wondering. Thanks and hope you had a great Memorial Day Weekend. With Respect
In our work money is always an issue. We have no more trial attorneys willing to take on tasks like Marc Angelucci. The actual costs of filing, travel and such is relatively minor, usually less than $5,000 which we can handle. The ACLU called us, not the other way around. Either way, the ACLU had the money resources to continue our case. I believed I mentioned that we would be taking up the issue internally in October. Unless something drastically changes before then, then October is when we will raise the issue again internally. So, right now the question of money is somewhat academic. However, if we decide to go it alone I’ve been told we’d need $150K to get it started and very roughly another $350K to keep it going. I imagine – no, I’m quite sure – someone or many will take exception to those costs. As, far as I’m concerned it’s all speculation at this juncture. However, my personal belief is that should we go it again the costs will be less since all the hard legal research and briefs have already been done. It should take very little effort to update them.
Thanks so much. I understand the difficulties. Let’s pray and hope for the best and do whatever we can. Peace.
Dear Mr. Crouch/NCFM:
Hello and hope you are well. Firstly I want to thank you so much for responding to me. Honestly speaking, with this issue regarding the Selective Service, getting a response from others and organizations is certainly not always the case. I really do hope come October, if finances does not become a destroyer, that you will continue through the courts to try to get this “law” forever done away with for future generations of men. This honestly at my age no longer applies to me really but it did one time and for those men who will be affected in the future I hope for better things for them.
I just also wanted to thank you for the years you worked on this issue which is not only to me the issue of the living but also of the dead. Those drafted men currently listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall and lying underneath Arlington Cemetery need you as well to continue this case if possible.
Also whether it was your intent or not your years of keeping this case before the judges “forced” Congress to at least “pretend” that they were going to rectify this injustice. Now that there is no viable case nothing is happening. There is no integrity on this. It is also important I think, from a gender role/expectation point of view, to continue this because it is important that women also be accountable as citizens regarding this issue although it would be my hope that Congress does away with the SSS. But if we have it it shouldn’t be sexist. (and ageist) I do believe truly, without being critical, that if this issue does not get resolved all other issues are “immaterial.” This is the ultimate “law” embodying male disposability and expendability and therefore all other issues are not even truly seen as important to men. If your body can be drafted, who cares about reproductive rights, divorce court proceedings, if men can see their children after divorce, if false accusations are brought, etc. I don’t mean to trivialize but to work on these issues while the “core” issue is “left” is like trying to learn the alphabet beginning from the letter O or Z rather than A.
Your commitment to this, and especially of Mr. Angelucci has had cause and effect consequences which have been very important to us as men and I just want to thank you for all the hard work. Please know of my assistance if I can help and I hope one day you will not only “come close” with this issue but be finally fully victorious. Peace.
NCFM, Did you talk with your legal group about what to do with the Selective serivce next?
Yes, and we’ll be talking about more soon. Harry
Hello ABC. I agree with you that the Kyle Labell case will not reach the Supreme Court because however of her age next year. But it is not due to standing. Judge Salas already ruled there was standing and although the government has challenged this I believe it is because the government is again GRASPING AT STRAWS (standing, ripeness, jurisdiction, etc.)for it knows this is ridiculous and unconstitutional (the all-male draft) This case is older than the NCFM’s case and although this case has had many tragic components, it has been stalled the past year with a new law firm and judge. My point is that it has stalled because it is not important to the courts. The two judges who looked at the merits(Salas and Miller) found this unconstitutional. The 5th circuit did nothing and nor “our” Supreme Court. It is “constitutional” by “judicial pass.” The governments hope is that because of funding and because of “hopeful discouragement” that no one else will bring this through the court system. (It is also Congress’s hope) I could of course be wrong but don’t believe so. Peace. PS a few thousands are doable
The Kyle-Labelle v SSS case is not older than the NCFM case, it was filed in 2015, while the NCFM v SSS was filed in 2013.
Plamen thanks so much for correcting me. I was using December 2015 as the beginning of the NCFM case. I forgot about the earlier 2013 ruling in California. Forgive me. Peace. Paul.
Hello Paul,I believe your response was meant to be directed to Plaman or to The NCFM but i will respond to your comment anyway.I agree with you that we need to do something as soon as possible about this unconstitutional law and i also believe you are onto something when you say that congress and people in office are trying to discourage people from filing lawsuits and pushing for equality in this by declining to hear our cases or by postponing this issue in congress and the senate to a later day and then never doing anything about it in hopes that we stop pushing for equality which is why it is important that we continue raising awareness about this inequality in the constitution.
I TOTALLY AGREE ABC. Neither the government nor courts will have compassion on men regarding this issue. There is no bill nor lawsuit (except Kyle Labelle?”) which is “working” on this issue. I called Rep. Chrissy Houlahan’s office thanking her for all her hard work on trying to get women on board the ship unless congress decided to end the SSS. Unless persistence continues nothing will happen. I also believe it has to eventually be through the Supreme Court for congress has proven for 40 years that it will not act. Peace.
Hi Paul, You said a very important word which was persistence which is going to be very important if we are going to achieve equality in the law.As i have said and as you have said before as well we need to continue to be persistent in pushing for equality by being more vocal and by raising awareness about these inequalities by continuing to discuss these topics online and in general.I am glad you decided to reach out to Representative Houlahan’s office to thank them for taking notice of this major inequality in the law.This is important because if we continue to call on our representatives about this they will begin to notice that this is a major issue that needs to be resolved in congress.In addition to calling them to thank them for their effort we need to tell them to support the repeal act or to write legislation to include everyone for registration.I also hope the NCFM decides to refile a new lawsuit soon to declare the current system unconstitutional in the law.
ABC I believe it is also important for court cases regarding the SSS to continue for the extra reason that it puts pressure on Congress so it has to, even though it does not want to, continue to “address” this “constitutional” law. The only reason why it “considered” adding women to the draft registration and the only reason it hired the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service to “study” this issue is because the court cases were viable at the time. Otherwise it would have been like it is now: Nothing Happening. This is evidenced by the fact that once the Supreme Court refused the case last year, even Senator Reed said that the proposal to add women would be fought by Congress to remove this provision from the NDAA22. Which of course was predictable. No lawsuit=no action by Congress. Sooner or later, if not out of justice, but a sense of shame, the Supreme Court hopefully will finally do its job. Federal judges have been partly willing to give declaratory judgement but probably one will not give injunctive relief. Let’s hope one day the right blending of people, funds, and timing will come together for an ultimate victory. Peace.
Hello. To all who care about the Selective Service System and how it hurts men in particular: the current goings on between Russia and Ukraine again show how important it is to end this. The possibility of it being reactivated, according to recent developments in the world may not be as “hypothetical” as first thought. Please may we keep praying and working to end this injustice. Peace.
Hi Paul,I agree that with all the uncertainty and the unfortunate events that are going on right now it has never been more important to take on this issue to either abolish it for everyone or to expand it to everyone to have equality in the law.I have a petition that you can find a few comments below to either abolish it or expand it to everyone to have equality.Something that everyone can do right now is to call on our congress members and our senators to consign the repeal act as soon as possible or to right legislation to expand it.
ABC hello. It is so good you have a petition. This case of the Selective Service System is not just, I believe, a case of a particular Men’s Organization nor a particular lawyer’s but a case of all of us, some of us who registered with Selective Service and violated our religious conscience in order to avoid ALL the penalties for not doing so, as well as the case of all those draftees currently on the Vietnam Memorial War and underneath Arlington cemetery. Good job and luck with your petition. With Respect
Thanks Paul for the support in this petition and our push for equality in the constitution.We need as many signatures that we can get get raise as much awareness regarding this issue to have the best chances to get congress and or the senate to take up this issue on the house and senate floor.We need to urge our congress members to cosign the repeal act or to include everyone in registration to achieve equality in the constitution.
And suddenly the topic of the male-only draft is even more relevant than ever.
Hello NCFM and any one else who might read this.I have recently started a petition to call on congress and the senate to either abolish the selective system or to make everyone register for the selective system.This is a very important issue and inequality un the law so We need to work together to bring equality in the law so i would appreciate if you could check out the petition and sign the petition to call on our congress and senate members to bring equality as soon as possible in the law.
In addition to signing the petition we should also contact our congress and senate members to act on this and bring this inequality onto the house and senate floor for a vote.
I have the link to the petition: https://chng.it/mtgBd6yn
NCFM,what does it mean my comment is waiting for moderation from the moderator.
NCFM,You should start a Fundraiser as soon as possible to start a new lawsuit to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.A lot of people will support this cause and assist in funding as well since it is a very important issue and inequality in the law.The equal rights amendment was ratified on January 27th and it is currently unofficially in the constitution as the 28th amendment of the constitution so now is the best time to file a new lawsuit to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.
Yes. I’m also of the opinion that if we let go of this issue, they will only make it more difficult (if not impossible) to get rid of the male only element. They are talking abou a Bill that would put registration “on standby” but the government would still retain men’s names in a registry will the needs arise. But the catch is that this means no plaintiff would now have Standing to sue the government because “they dont have to actively register”. So they will try to “kill the draft” without actually killing it. We have to do something or else this will never get resolved.
Thanks for your response but i disagree with you.Even if they put The current selective system on standby the current selective system is still unconstitutional in law via the 14th amendment of the constitution and the equal protections clause.You still cannot have a system with a list of names of people that is solely based on your gender so it can still be challenged in the courts since it still violates the 14 amendment of the constitution and the equal protections clause.I would say keeping the current selective system on standby is the last and least probable option compared to making everyone register or abolishing the current system completely since keeping the current system on standby would be a waste of money and would become useless once the people that would be registered age out of the system and are no longer eligible to get called on.Even if that was the case that you cannot sue the system if they put the system on standby if and when they decide to resume the system it can and will be challenged in the courts.
There is currently a repeal act that would abolish the current selective system so the best thing we could do right now is to call on our congress members and senators and tell them to repeal the system completely or to make everyone register for the selective system as well as to start a fundraiser to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.
Hey, ABC. Thanks for replying. I see what you are saying. Whether they keep the Selective service, ot put it on stand-by with men’s names only, I agree that it’s unconstitutional discrimination and we should continue to fight it in court.
Dear Plamen:
Do you know of any law organization who has the financial resources and would have the desire to bring the SSS back into the courtroom? ACLU again? Of course this requires as well a man 18 or so to bring the case. It seems finances is the main problem am I right? I saw the head of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service state recently that since Congress did not do its job this year by adding women to the draft as the commission recommended, it may now be the time for the Supreme Court to do its job. I don’t know if you aware of it, you probably are, that there is a case in N.J. which is even older than the NCFM case against the SSS which has been “stalled” since the judge found the MSSA unconstitutional as well. THE SILENCE NOW ON THIS ISSUE IS DEAFENING. Thanks. Paul
Hi Paul,I am aware of all the information you just stated in your comment and as far as i am aware i do not believe the ALCU are starting lawsuit unless a new one is made from another group like the NCFM although the ALCU did post an update on their website the day the provision to include everyone in the selective system was removed which means they are aware of the situation.The group that was working with the ALCU legal team i believe was a law group called the Howell law group in case you wanted to know that.The best way we can get a new lawsuit is to assist in funding a new one since like you mentioned the only thing primarily that is holding the NCFM or anyone else for that matter from starting a lawsuit is funding which is why it is very important that everyone assists if possible to start a new lawsuit to declare the current system as unconstitutional in the law.
Our NCFM Legal Group will be discussing this today… Harry Crouch
This is really great news to hear NCFM to everyone who believes in equality in the law and i hope you have success in your discussion today to file a successful new lawsuit to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.I would also like to add that The people pushing for the equal rights amendment are going to get their lawsuit heard this month to officially ratify the ERA into the constitution and if they are successful it will assist us greatly in bringing equality in the law a lot more quickly.
Nothing definitive yet. Our meeting was rescheduled due to ZOOM issues.
Hopefully whenever the meeting takes pace there will be good news about starting a new lawsuit and hopefully if that happens you can refile as soon as possible to declare the current system as unconstitutional in the law.I will continue to raise awareness regarding this issue to get as much support as possible regarding this issue and to be able to get as much funds that we need to start a new lawsuit.
Hello. ABC thanks for responding and I figured you knew this already. ABC, for a person like me who is not aware, can you give some idea to me about how much financially it costs for instance to bring a lawsuit of these type? Are we talking thousands or hundreds of thousands? And from my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, it seems the NCFM has decided not to pursue this further correct? If this is the case, then what, in your opinion, would be the best way to proceed at this point? I don’t know of any other men’s organization working on this and the case in New Jersey of Kyle-label is just “sitting” dormant sadly. Honestly, I thought that case may have had a greater chance of success, not because it is a better case, but it involves a woman challenging the SSS. But it seems to have stopped. For those of us who care about this, WHAT SHOULD BE NEXT?? Thanks and peace always.
Our lead attorney Marc Angelucci was murdered July 11, 2020. Shot four times in the back. Judge Esther Salas, a New Jersey Federal Judge, was the target of the same gunman, Roy Den Hollander, who succeeded in murdering her only son and shooting her husband. Aside from being mentally deranged, Hollander was apparently dissatisfied with how Judge Salas was handling the case to which you refer. It may be, that because of the murders Den Hollander’s case is stalled. Murdered or not, and, because of our law suit and Congress’s refusal to require women to register, Den Hollander may yet find a better place in history should his case somehow prevail. Ironic to say the least…
The Kyle-Labelle case won’t make it to SCOTUS because the plaintiff, Elizabeth Kyle-Labelle turns 26 next year. Futhermore, they are already arguing she lacks standing because she doesn’t have to register but can join voluntarily. It has to be a draft-age man who challenges the Selective service.
Hello. Yes please know I was aware of the tragic loss of Mr. Angelucci. I had corresponded with him several times and he was always most kind to me. Judge Salas was one of the judges who declared the all-male draft unconstitutional and I am sorry for the tragic loss of her son as well. From my understanding another law firm took over the case and has had it for a long time with another judge in charge and it has stalled. Honestly this was all I was implying. That such a serious men’s issue has been treated sadly so stagnantly it seems by the courts where equal protection is needed I believe. The NCFM has done so much about this case and I am sincerely grateful to you. With Respect
I am not sure what would be the exact cost of a new lawsuit but i estimate it is probably a few several thousand dollars.There are a lot small fees that add up to several thousand dollars like lawyer fees,Court fees,Paper work and other things that are required to get a lawsuit going.The best thing we can do is to continue to raise awareness about this major issue and inequality in the law.Another thing we can do if possible is for someone to start a fundraiser such as a go fund me to be able to get the funds we need to start a new lawsuit tot declare the current system as unconstitutional in the law.
It is unreasonable and dangerous to presume that American men will respond effectively to a military draft when the political establishment has laws and practices which discriminate against them because of their gender, inclusive of the military draft. In fact, only about 1% of American young people are both interested in and qualified for military service. The feminization of men and American society and the feminist war against the manly virtues insure that the relative and absolute number of American men willing and able to serve in the U.S. Military will continue to decline.The general decline in American society and culture and the U.S. military will naturally continue because of the same.
We need to assist if possible in starting a new lawsuit by starting a fundraiser and assisting in funding it to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.The equal rights amendment is currently being discussed and while it is not officially in the constitution there are a lot of lawsuits that are expected to begin against any laws that violate equal rights so now is a good time to file a new lawsuit.
If you are going to blame any group you should primarily blame conservatives which were the primary group of people that were against equality in the law and are the primary reason of why we still do not have equality in the law.
I believe the all-male draft is the ultimate expression of society’s view of males as disposable and expendable. I know it is really expensive to bring lawsuits against the government but if it is financially feasible, it should be continued. The reason is I believe is this: NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IF THIS “LAW” REMAINS IN PLACE. For the mentality of society becomes, if men are disposable and expendable in war, who cares about their reproductive rights, who cares if they are wiped out in divorce court, who cares if they get to see their children after divorce, who cares if they have false accusations brought against them, for if THEY ARE DISPOSABLE AND EXPENDABLE ANYWAY NONE OF THESE OTHER THINGS MATTERS. The “logic” works. I feel very sad it has ended up this way, although the selective service no longer applies to me, it seems the future generations of sons will continue to bear this injustice, perhaps ad infinitum. Thanks.
We need to assist if possible in funding by perhaps starting a fundraiser just for this issue to file a new lawsuit as soon as possible to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.This is a very important issue as you said and we can not let more time pass by to start a new lawsuit.The equal rights amendment is currently being discussed and while it is not yet officially in the constitution there are a lot of lawsuits that are expected to begin against laws that violate and goes against equal rights so now is the best time to file a new lawsuit.
“NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IF THIS “LAW” REMAINS IN PLACE” -I completely agree with you, Paul. Basically if society treats men as so disposable that they are the only gender registering for a potential draft, then good luck trying to convince people to care about the other men’s rights issues. The Male Only draft is “central” to men’s discrimination, if you will, it’s just misandry and male disposability distilled to its purest form. It just has to be ended.
Yes Plamen. IT NEEDS TO BE ENDED. The fact that the Supreme Court had the audacity to keep it “constitutional” by DUCKING THEIR JUDICIAL REPONSIBILITY shows how casually men are seen as insignificant. Thanks for mentioning my words in your response. Peace. Paul.
Thanks you for good work for abolishing male-only conscription, it’s important issue! Greetings!
Unfortunately It is not yet abolished and we still do not have equality yet in the law.You are correct that it is a very important issue and inequality in the law.We need to start a fundraiser to assist in funding if possible to start a new lawsuit to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in law.
This is a list of politicians that vocally opposed making selective service registration and conscription gender neutral and pushed for it to remain male only:
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO)
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
Senator James Lankford (R-OK)
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT)
Senator Roger F. Wicker (R-MS)
Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD)
Senator Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-04 in UT)
Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-22 in NY)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT)
Senator Mary Miller (R-IL-5)
(https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021293; see everyone who voted “NAY/NO” on the drop-down menu under Votes)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/9/senate-republicans-introduce-resolution-block-sele/
https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1419633537301504002
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-block-dem-attempts-women-military-draft
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r5ypqr/we_shouldnt_be_making_the_draft_applicable_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/pzfse8/marjorie_taylor_green_cries_about_women/
https://coloradonewsline.com/2021/12/04/women-military-draft-defense-bill-congres/
https://www.enterprise-journal.com/politics-press-releases/senators-wicker-hyde-smith-work-block-draft-women-6189454a4d55d#sthash.XrfUuAuM.dpbs
https://romesentinel.com/stories/tenney-backs-womens-choice-in-service-act,122834
https://archive.md/0VL4L
https://archive.md/0TqgQ
In case men are wondering who it is that expressed interest in upholding an anti-male, male only conscription system, these are the politicians.
The best course of action is to vote against them when they next run for re-election if you live in their district. Men should find out when these politicians are running for re-election and who their challengers are, so they can vote for one of the challenger of these politicians and vote them out of office. Show your disapproval at the polls. If this is simply forgotten, then politicians will continue feeling emboldened to devalue the lives of men while paying lip service to men’s struggles.
Also we need to make sure others that have voiced disgusting views on this issue, such as the republican Justin Waters running for Congress (who has tweeted that “men are expendable”), are voted against and do not make it into Congress.
https://archive.md/o1MGj
https://archive.md/gz3Es
https://archive.md/2p0mJ
https://archive.md/cfakX
https://ballotpedia.org/Justin_Waters
Thank you again for all you do NCFM. Despite the naysayers claiming this issue would never see the light of day again, it was because of you that we got a rare look at who the politicians and elected officials are that most clearly disregard the lives of their male constituents and who see men as being beneath women.
It’s clear from the behavior of the Supreme Court punting this issue to Congress under the excuse that Congress would be able to “deliberate” (which further politicized the issue) and many conservatives in Congress voicing vocal support for keeping male only conscription in place while pushing for the gender neutral provision in the NDAA bill to be removed (with very little resistance from democrats) that current American leaders see this as a non issue. This is unacceptable and should translate to efforts to vote them out by voting for their challenger when they are next up for re-election.
It especially highlights that just as in the 1980s with the ERA, conservatives overall haven’t changed and will always push for stalling and intervening to stop equality for men under the law, under the excuse of a want to keep things “traditional”. This is despite how even they are aware now of how men are struggling. They still choose to throw men under the bus. Traditionalists and social conservatives don’t care about men’s rights or even equal protections under the law and never will. Remember all this, this is a once in a lifetime chance for men in America to see exactly how current politicians and elected court justices feel about them and view them as.
This is a very good comment to show how many representatives and senators were against equality in the law.We should assist in funding if possible by starting a fundraiser to start a new lawsuit as soon as possible to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.This is a very important issue and we cannot let more time go by to start a new lawsuit.The equal rights amendment is currently being discussed and while it is not officially in the constitution yet there are a lot of lawsuits that are expected to begin against any laws that violate equal rights so now is the best time to file a new lawsuit.
I believe that too. It should also not be forgotten how many anti-male conscription laws were upheld by many politicians and who they were, so that people that care about males being treated as expendable can help vote against these politicians when they are next up for re-election.
There are some new developments since then. A petition has been made and is being circulated on men’s rights reddits to abolish conscription: https://chng.it/mtgBd6yn
Pro male groups like the one I have participated in have called out the myth and holes in the theory of male expendability/male disposability: https://promalecollective.wordpress.com/2021/12/08/the-sad-anti-male-myth-of-male-disposability-male-expendability/
as well as pointed out the misandrist and hostile idea of large numbers of single men being deemed a “threat” that is used to justify human rights abuses like male conscription: https://promalecollective.wordpress.com/2022/01/15/addressing-the-profoundly-misandrist-idea-that-a-large-population-of-single-men-are-a-threat/
The work by the NCFM on getting this court case forward was great, but one place they were severely lacking (if I may offer some constructive criticism) is online social media. Meanwhile, traditionalists groups like the Family Research Council (FRC) and politicians like Chip Roy (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) were loudly complaining about the possibility of conscription being made gender neutral and their voices were amplified.
Men’s rights organizations like the NCFM need a much more pronounced social media presence. It’s one thing for pro male activism to come from the individual or a set of individuals. It is much more credible and convincing when it comes from a men’s rights organization like the NCFM and that organization engages in active outreach and activism on social media.
Agreed. All it takes is people, time, motivation and money. Lots of all of it.
Getting on social media doesn’t necessarily take funding, it just takes a few coordinated people to jump on posts, call out misandric opponents, agitate people, and like/share/signal boost each other.
You have individual misandrist politicians like Josh Hawley and Justin Waters posting on Twitter to boost their chivalry. It’s not like individual NCFM members can’t do the same for men’s cause.
Just having a few members signal boost each other and call out misandrists in popular tweet threads can work to get social momentum going. Also deciding on hashtags to keep reusing in tweets can help people find your pro-men’s rights momentum. (For example, there are a few of us guys trying to coordinate and tweet at people with the hashtags #AAdontdiscriminateagainstmen #redditbanfeministhate and #twitterbanfeministhate.)
It would also be very helpful if more people would comment on our Facebook page…
Facebook is not as good a platform for activism because it requires you to put in a lot of details about yourself (such as your real name) before you sign up, which will deter a lot of people that would like to keep that information to themselves. It also lacks the viral aspect and engagement that other social media has.
Twitter and reddit are much better for men’s rights activism. It’s been a while since anyone at the NCFM did a Q&A or Ask Me Anything (AMA) on a men’s rights sub too.
The NCFM should definitely be more active on twitter, that’s where people like Chip Roy (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Justin Waters were getting people agitated about “don’t draft our daughters” in response to the proposal that women would merely have to SIGN up for conscription (selective service) like all men have to do currently.
I agree, Facebook is not really used a lot anymore which is the reason why if people are going to raise awareness it is better to do it in sites like Twitter,Youtube and reddit which has a lot more users than facebook.NCFM should use their twitter more often to to raise more awareness about this issue and inequality in the law and the constitution.
I agree with you Alex even if you are unable to donate a simple comment on social media to raise awareness assists in a good way in our push for equality in the law.I have been spreading the word out on reddit to get more people to support this issue/lawsuit and to sign my petition that calls on congress and the senate to do something regarding this issue.You can find my petition in the comments above if you are interested in signing it.
We need that but also to be more active on social or media to expose more to this movement and somehow competes with the narrative popular narrative like traditional consersative and feminism on many male issues (in this case draft). We have to be more active than ever and be proactive for our rigths. Ultimately, rigth wingers and feminists are very active on social media or media throwing their own agendas on the draft. You can have the funds and miney but if the men are passive or apathetic to their rigths, it will not productive or give results.
Men, generally, have been passive, apathetic and ignorant about their rights and lack thereof longer than I’ve been an MRA…over 30 years. However slow, we are making progress; and, the more men and women see the myriad of injustices, like SCOTUS and Congress failing our petition regarding the Selective Service the more the ignorant become less passive and apathetic. IMO.
Hello. Perhaps if, and hopefully it won’t, the situation in Ukraine with Russia expands to a World War and the SSS is reactivated, do you think men will again be passive and apathetic? Do you think they will readily be drafted and anxiously be willing to be so or do you think lawsuits will then “flood” the system against the SSS? I know two years ago, when the Iranian general was killed by the Trump administration, the SSS website crashed with men concerned and there was not even a draft. Does due to the fact that the Supreme Court refused your case when 2 federal judges found the all-male draft unconstitutional show real progress for men? The hope now for the courts and congress I believe is that no other person will bring this case through the courts and just accept the discrimination. It has been 7 years that women has been in all Military Occupational Specialties and only one sex is still only liable to be drafted. Is this progress? It is not even human to me. We need to end this.
Hi Paul,I agree that hopefully they will not reactivate it but in the event that they do i believe and hope that a lot of people will not comply since it is a discriminatory law and i believe the supreme court said in a different case that people do not have to follow unconstitutional laws which means no one has the obligation to follow the current discriminatory system.I really hope the NCFM files a new lawsuit soon against this discriminatory system.
I agree Rasaol78 that a lot of these conservatives like you mentioned posted a lot on social media to get the word out which is probably one of the reasons why they were unfortunately successful from removing the provision that would have required everyone to register.We need to post just as much if not more then these conservatives to spread awareness about this issue and to ensure that we achieve equality in the law.I have been posting on reddit to raise awareness and to spread my petition that i have made regarding this issue to get as much support that we can get but i believe we need to expand our social media presence to other places like youtube and twitter and other big social media sites to get the most support that we can get to have equality in the law.My petition is located above in one of my comments if you want to sign it.
I agree 1000% with you comment.I also believe that if we are going to be successful in abolishing the selective system or expanding it to everyone to have equality in the law we need to be more vocal and continue to raise awareness about this major inequality in the law.Part of the reason unfortunately why these conservatives like the ones you mentioned were successful was because they were very vocal and did not stop making noise until they got what they wanted which is the reason why we need to do the same to be successful in achieving equality in the law.In addition to signing the petition we need to contact our congress members and senators and tell them to either abolish the selective system or to expand it to everyone as well as to start a fundraiser to file a new lawsuit as soon as possible to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.
I must add some things that were not included in the blog post you linked titled “The sad anti-male myth of male disposability/male expendability”.
A common argument to promote and enforce sex selective male sacrifice in the draft and male specific “duty to rescue”/”good samaritan laws” is arguing about sustaining the future of the human population. The argument is along the lines of “A society with 100 women and 1 man can survive, as the man can impregnate all women within a short frame of time (~9 months) and 100 children will be born, whereas with a society with 1 woman and 100 men, only 1 child will be born after 9 months”. There are other valid objections to this argument other than the point about inbreeding, which that blog post mainly focuses on.
Focusing on the argument itself of how sacrificing men ensures enough babies being born, it’s centered around survival of the human species.
The situation posed always assumes that wars will reduce humanity to just a few hundred people, so therefore survival of the human species becomes a critical focus. However, regular, conventional war by itself never reduces human population to this level. Their scenario is posed when talking about humans facing extinction, which is absurd. There’s currently more than 7 billion people on the planet, so even in a war situation, millions (both men and women) would remain alive, far above reproductive bottleneck levels.
There would be far more than 1 surviving man on Earth after a conventional war too, so the 1 man and 100 women scenario isn’t even realistic.
The only war situation through which a population can be reduced to reproductive bottleneck levels is through a nuclear war. However, drafting men doesn’t stop nuclear war. So the entire argument for drafting men to save the future of the human species and for enough babies to be born to sustain the human population is a moot point.
The argument but up by proponents of the forced sacrifice of male lives also has racist underlyings.
What they are arguing is that by not sacrificing male lives, “there won’t be enough men from x country to repopulate”, which is similar to the racist and supremacist rhetoric of “we need pure racial stock from this country to repopulate and this can only be done if the men of the country fight to protect its heritage”.
It should be no surprise that male conscription became common during times of nationalism and imperialism like with Napoleonic conscription, where men were conscripted to amass the largest armies possible to gain and keep the most territory.
These are the list of politicians that vocally opposed making selective service registration and conscription gender neutral and pushed for it to remain male only:
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO)
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
Senator James Lankford (R-OK)
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT)
Senator Roger F. Wicker (R-MS)
Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD)
Senator Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-04 in UT)
Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-22 in NY)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT)
Senator Mary Miller (R-IL-5)
(https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021293; see everyone who voted “NAY/NO” on the drop-down menu under Votes) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/9/senate-republicans-introduce-resolution-block-sele/
https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1419633537301504002
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-block-dem-attempts-women-military-draft
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r5ypqr/we_shouldnt_be_making_the_draft_applicable_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/pzfse8/marjorie_taylor_green_cries_about_women/
https://coloradonewsline.com/2021/12/04/women-military-draft-defense-bill-congres/
https://www.enterprise-journal.com/politics-press-releases/senators-wicker-hyde-smith-work-block-draft-women-6189454a4d55d#sthash.XrfUuAuM.dpbs
https://romesentinel.com/stories/tenney-backs-womens-choice-in-service-act,122834
https://archive.md/0VL4L
https://archive.md/0TqgQ
In case men are wondering who it is that expressed interest in upholding an anti-male, male only conscription system, these are the politicians.
The best course of action is to vote against them when they next run for re-election if you live in their district. Men should find out when these politicians are running for re-election and who their challengers are, so they can vote for one of the challenger of these politicians and vote them out of office. Show your disapproval at the polls. If this is simply forgotten, then politicians will continue feeling emboldened to devalue the lives of men while paying lip service to men’s struggles.
Also we need to make sure others that have voiced disgusting views on this issue, such as the republican Justin Waters running for Congress (who has tweeted that “men are expendable”), are voted against and do not make it into Congress.
https://archive.md/o1MGj
https://archive.md/gz3Es
https://archive.md/2p0mJ
https://archive.md/cfakX
https://ballotpedia.org/Justin_Waters
Thank you again for all you do NCFM. Despite the naysayers claiming this issue would never see the light of day again, it was because of you that we got a rare look at who the politicians and elected officials are that most clearly disregard the lives of their male constituents and who see men as being beneath women.
It’s clear from the behavior of the Supreme Court punting this issue to Congress under the excuse that Congress would be able to “deliberate” (which further politicized the issue) and many conservatives in Congress voicing vocal support for keeping male only conscription in place while pushing for the gender neutral provision in the NDAA bill to be removed (with very little resistance from democrats) that current American leaders see this as a non issue. This is unacceptable and should translate to efforts to vote them out by voting for their challenger when they are next up for re-election.
It especially highlights that just as in the 1980s with the ERA, conservatives overall haven’t changed and will always push for stalling and intervening to stop equality for men under the law, under the excuse of a want to keep things “traditional”. This is despite how even they are aware now of how men are struggling. They still choose to throw men under the bus. Traditionalists and social conservatives don’t care about men’s rights or even equal protections under the law and never will. Remember all this, this is a once in a lifetime chance for men in America to see exactly how current politicians and elected court justices feel about them and view them as.
Will ncfm go back to the Supreme Court now that congress failed to act?
Not sure yet. We are looking at but if we have to start from scratch again the odds are against it.
Oh, is it due to a lack of funding? I can try to help with that, or is it just a lack of time?
Funding primarily.
NCFM,You should start a Fundraiser as soon as possible to start a new lawsuit to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.A lot of people will support this cause and assist in funding as well since it is a very important issue and inequality in the law.The equal rights amendment was ratified on January 27th and it is currently unofficially in the constitution as the 28th amendment of the constitution so now is the best time to file a new lawsuit to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.
It may take a while to get a new lawsuit to the supreme court unfortunately so NCFM should file a new lawsuit again as soon as possible to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.We should start a fundraiser and assist in funding if possible to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.This is a very important issue and inequality in the law.
Feminist’s have avoided the question for years by saying no one should be drafted. I can remember Gloria Steinem saying it years ago
I think a draft is still necessary. We do not know the future regarding war. But saying we don’t need a draft and then taking no action to eliminated the male bias, is clear evidence that influential feminists have no interest in gender equality. As if we need that example to know that.
To quote “Ayn Rand on the draft: “It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right-the right to life-and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.”
Regardless,the draft still may be necessary. Everyone should play an equal part.
It seems a handful of chivalrous US Senators pulled the plug on our efforts more so than opposing feminists… Or, men played a large part in killing the provision, even more so than “feminists.”
The most vocal proponents of keeping anti-male laws like male only conscription in place and who tried hardest to remove this provision were Chip Roy (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), but there were also female politicians like Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-MS) and Claudia Tenney (R-22 in NY) that voiced support for much the same.
I have collected a list of politicians that have voiced support for male only conscription so that men know who they are and can vote against them accordingly when they run for re-election.
I think it would definitely help for you at the NCFM to post about this on social media and tweet out this information to inform men’s rights activists. They should know who exactly pushed for male only conscription to remain in place.
I 100% agree with your comment.People should know who voted against equality in the law and choose to not vote for them in their next elections.People that believe this is an important issue and inequality in the law need to see that conservatives in particular are not on our side and do not believe in equality in the law. we need to vote for people that believe in equality in the law and call our current congress representative and senators to bring equality in the law as soon as possible.we also need to start a fundraiser if possible to start a lawsuit to declare the current selective system as unconstitutional in the law.