Senator Tommy Tuberville’s long career in college football makes him no stranger to Auburn, Ole Miss, and University of Cincinnati fans alike. Tuberville, still referred to as “Coach” by his supporters, has taken a new interest off of the field during his rookie term as Alabama senator: abortion rights. 

Over the past 7 months, Tuberville has made headlines in his refusal to confirm military nominees. His motivation for this opposition stems from an October 2022 Department of Defense (DOD) policy that allows for all service members, no matter which state they are stationed in, to have access to reproductive health care despite the overturn of Roe v. Wade. With an influx of states passing anti-abortion legislation, including Tuberville’s state of Alabama, the policy ensures the assignments of military personnel remain of fair comparison, especially considering that individuals do not get a choice in where they are stationed. For Tuberville, the policy is an “illegal use of the Pentagon budget for abortion.”

The law Tuberville asserts the DOD policy violates is Title 10 Section 1093 of the United States Code, which prohibits the use of DOD funds or facilities to provide abortions. A key clarification Tuberville overlooks in his justification for why the DOD policy warrants his nomination blockade is that the code specifies that the rule may be exempt in the event that the mother’s or fetus’ life is at risk or in the case of rape or incest. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin clarifies the new policy does not fund abortions but rather ensures that Title 10 Section 1093 applies to all stations. Austin further specifies the policy's guidelines by reiterating that “service members are responsible for fees associated with non-covered reproductive health care.” Not only is the new policy legal, but its absence would, in Austin’s words, “interfere with our ability to recruit, retain, and maintain the readiness of a highly qualified force.”

Tuberville’s hold on these vital nominations is detrimental to military operations. With halted nominations projected to explode from 250 up to 650, there is no question that the military is facing the consequences. The Vacancies Act of 1988 permits an active official to take on the responsibilities of a vacant role temporarily without explicit Senate approval, which allows for the nominees to assume at least some responsibilities without officially assuming the positions. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, a prestigious group of high-ranking military officials charged with advising the President on the armed forces, are also facing the costs of Tuberville’s blockade. Such unprecedented obstacles left the Marine Corps without a confirmed leader for the first time in over a hundred years, with three of the eight officials only gaining senatorial approval this month. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, an experienced politician whose 43 years in Congress contrasts Tuberville’s two, clarified how exceptional Tuberville’s actions truly are as he addressed the floor: “leaving those positions vacant, risking our security, is one of the most abominable and outrageous things I have ever seen in this chamber, witnessed by the fact that no one has ever had the temerity, the gall to do this before.”

Just as in football, where coaches are bound to the rules of play and shift their strategies depending on the opponent, legislators can craft numerous game plans for achieving their various policy goals within the boundaries of the law. While I am no football coach, I have investigated congressional procedures and suggest several less vulnerable plays for Coach Tuberville to pursue in an attempt to accomplish his goal of scrutinizing the DOD’s new abortion policy. 

While the DOD policy is not illegal, there are options to override executive policies in the event of opposition. One clear alternative is to motion for the impeachment or removal of DOD officials from office. What makes this option different from a blockade is that it ensures the position will be filled either way, whether the individual remains in their position following an impeachment attempt or a subsequent nominee takes their place. 

Congress additionally holds the ability to control agency funding, or in this case decrease or refuse funding specifically for the DOD’s new policy as stated in the Appropriations Clause. The Supreme Court has additionally recognized this responsibility, ruling, “Congress may always circumscribe agency discretion to allocate resources by putting restrictions in the operative statutes.” Congress is further permitted to restrict certain list items when allocating funds through conditions, limitations, and appropriation riders, or in Tuberville’s case specifically restrict funding abortion access in its entirety. 

Tuberville argues, “I just want the American people to have a say-so in this, not the Pentagon.”  Based on his complaints, the options I put forward allow for the House and Senate, composed of elected rather than appointed officials, to express their say on the matter. If Tuberville were genuinely concerned about the lack of representation of the American people in the policy decision, he would introduce legislation that specifically targets the DOD’s policy.

Tuberville has further expressed concern over Secretary Austin’s lack of explanation for the decision. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tuberville can exercise the committee’s investigative oversight power over executive agencies under which the committee can hold an investigation into the DOD’s new policy, where testimony from DOD officials, specifically from Secretary Austin, may be acquired. 

Tuberville, however, has recently expressed alternative motivations to his persistent blockade aside from sufficient public representation and accountability. On the anniversary of 9/11, Tuberville contended that upon further research into the nominees, “Many of these nominees are worthy of confirmation. Some are not. The Senate ought to do our job under the Constitution and advise and consent to these nominations.” Based on his remarks, the hold on nominations appears to have a more political agenda than the abortion policy protest he initially pursued. 

Given the numerous alternatives I have presented and found to be more sound in both reason and effectiveness, I offer a final plea to Coach Tuberville: if the defensive coordinator calls a play with which you disagree, you wouldn’t punish the players. Healthcare policy concerns from upper-level executive agency officials should not translate to a stalemate in promotions for military officers uninvolved in the decision.