Comment: Actually, women have been included in previous bills

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Drafting women is a new development (see in situ)

Actually, women have been included in previous bills

See this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act

I understand your righteous indignation; conscription is reprehensible. However, I was simply trying to point out that this bill has been introduced many times and gone nowhere. As the wiki article points out, many commentators believe that Rangel is proposing it to try and make a point, since it would also remove exemptions for not only women but college students, among other perceived inequities in the current selective service framework.

Now, whether Rangel is in fact doing this year after year to "try and make a political point" about the need for universal national service, or if it is a more practical, calculated effort to float the idea and see just how the political winds are blowing, is for you to judge. I, however, was just trying to provide some more context for this news story, which, to be clear, I certainly did not begrudge you for posting.