SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Senate has passed a provision that would require women to register for the draft, but don't expect any changes soon:
On Tuesday, the Senate passed a defense authorization bill that would require young women to register for the draft — the latest development in a long-running debate over whether women should sign up for the Selective Service. The provision would apply to women turning 18 in 2018 or later and would impose the same requirements and rules that currently apply to men.
The policy is still far from being law. The House, after considering a similar provision earlier this spring, ultimately passed an authorization bill that omitted it; the two branches of Congress now must resolve the differences between their bills. And the bill faces a veto threat from President Obama over other elements of the legislation, such as the prohibition on closing down the Guantanamo Bay military prison. But the bill's passage brings women a step closer to Selective Service registration — a historic change that has bipartisan support in Congress but is firmly opposed by some conservative lawmakers.
For decades, the U.S. policy of having a draft for men, and not women, was approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court. But as NPR's David Welna reported last year, the court's reasoning relied on the fact that women were barred from combat roles. Now that women are eligible for combat duty, "Congress seems to have lost its court-endorsed rationale for limiting Selective Service registration to males only," David wrote.
Previously: Women Warriors Coming Soon to US Forces
(Score: 2, Insightful) by rts008 on Friday June 17 2016, @12:56PM
Failed the genetics part of jr. high science class, I see.
Your statement would cause hysterical laughter to be directed at you, if uttered at one of my family reunions. (both my parents are brown-eyed brunettes, and all five of us kids are blue-eyed blondes- this is the rule, rather than the exception, for many generations in my family)
Family notwithstanding, observations over most of my almost 60 years provide strong evidence that you are overstating the tendency way too strongly to even be considered seriously.
I would suggest 'practicing what you preach', so you don't appear as yet another clueless idiot, bragging about their stupidity to the world.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday June 21 2016, @03:44AM
Nope, I know damn well how genetics work. People who have blue eyes have two copies of a recessive gene making two blue eyed people exceedingly unlikely to have anything other than blue eyed children. Just because you don't personally understand how genetics works, doesn't mean that it's any less true.
It's somewhere between rare and impossible for two blue eyed parents to have children who don't have some form of blue eyes. And certainly not brown eyes as those are dominant genes.
BTW, if you were actually informed about genetics you wouldn't be calling me a clueless idiot. It's pretty well established by years of research that blue eyes are a recessive gene and brown eyes are a dominant one. Things have gotten somewhat muddied in recent years in terms of genetics, but cases that don't follow that pattern are rare enough that a paternity test is in order.
Just because you're too lazy to do any research on the topic doesn't make it any less true.