Women who served in the military between 1951 and 1976 were subject to discharge if they became pregnant. A new bill would retroactively compensate hundreds, if not thousands, of those women who were “wrongfully and involuntarily separated” from the military over more than two decades.
Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) introduced the Women Involuntary Separated Earnings Remittance (WISER) Act last week to “rectify a wrong perpetuated against women servicemembers” who were discharged due to an executive order by former President Harry Truman.
“The unfair practice of discharging women from the military because they became pregnant or became a mother was not only wrong, but it perpetuated a harmful cycle of gender prejudice,” Brownley said in a statement, adding that it “provides recompense for this transgression and often overlooked attack on women servicemembers.”
The bill would give eligible women veterans, who are most likely older, a lump sum payment of $25,000 and access to healthcare through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
In June 1948, women were officially allowed to enlist in the military, although they had been doing so since the Revolutionary War. Three years later, President Truman signed Executive Order 10240 which allowed women to be involuntarily separated if they had a child, had custody of a child, were a step-parent or became pregnant. In 1976, an appeals court ruled that the order was unconstitutional and the policy was rescinded — but there was never an action to rectify the harm done to women who were separated.
Brownley came across the issue during discussions with constituents as part of her work on the Women Veterans Task Force which she founded. The number of women impacted is not fully understood due to a lack of Defense Department records on women who were discharged under the policy. One woman who contacted Brownley’s office had pregnancy listed as the discharge reason on her DD214 form.
Subscribe to Task & Purpose today. Get the latest military news and culture in your inbox daily.
“If somebody was thrown out of the military in July and they gave birth in September and they have documentation, a birth certificate for their child, it’s pretty clear why they were thrown out,” an official with Brownley’s office familiar with the legislation said. “Even if it doesn’t say on their documentation that they were thrown out because they were pregnant, there are other ways to sort of prove that that was the reason.”
Brownley’s office got language expressing that the policy was wrong in the 2023 annual defense policy bill and wanted a federal study to look at the problem. The DoD and Government Accountability Office said they couldn’t study the issue because of the lack of documentation.
The legislation would instead set up a pathway for the Defense Department to review submitted discharges. It also gives the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs the authority to look at past documentation, of which the bill doesn’t specify in order to be inclusive. The onus to prove eligibility will be on women veterans to provide supporting documents because of the lack of formal military records, the official said.
Brownley’s office is hoping previous retroactive payments approved by Congress to right older injustices will apply with this bill. Brownley’s office cited a bill signed into law in 2009 by former President Barack Obama which gave a one-time $15,000 payment to Filipinos who fought alongside U.S. troops during World War II and were denied military benefits.
The official with Brownley’s office said discussions on the fiscal year 2025 defense policy and funding bills are too far along so they are working on support for the legislation with the hopes of getting it into next year’s defense bill. The bill is currently co-sponsored by South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson.
This bill is endorsed by Minority Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and American Veterans.