This is the complete transcript of what was stated:

ERIC SHAWN (co-anchor): So this is now causing a controversy?

LIZ TROTTA (Fox News contributor): Well, it's a controversy that won't be a controversy because of political correctness. But we have women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time. So what is the news? The news is that the Pentagon is going to add 14,000 more jobs for women in the military, but the overall ban against serving in the infantry, in special operations units, and combat tank units, is still in place. Well, you may ask, why did 140 women die in Afghanistan and Iraq if this ban was in place? Well the whole way we wage war has changed enormously. No front lines, no clear delineation of where troops are. Women can be attached to battalions, but they can't actually be in battalions. That would get down to the real guts of how we fight wars -- and that is being a member of the infantry.

But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it's strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims' advocates, sexual response coordinators. Let me just read something to you from McClatchy Newspapers about how much this position on extreme feminism is costing us. "The budget for the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office leapt from $5 million in fiscal 2005 to more than $23 million in fiscal 2010. Total Defense Department spending on sexual assault prevention and related efforts now exceeds $113 million annually." That's from McClatchy Newspapers.

So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

SHAWN: Well, many would say that they need to be protected, and there are these sexual programs, abuse programs, are necessary --

TROTTA: That's funny, I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war.

SHAWN: Well, you certainly want the people fighting the war to be protected from anything that could be illegal.

TROTTA: Oh, look, I mean, that's -- nice try Eric. This whole question of women in the military has not been aired properly, and it's the great sleeping giant.


What I get from this is that women should expect to be raped more and that they shouldn't expect that the military will spend money on programs to prevent this or help the victims of this. That's pretty backwards. I think it would be one thing to be critical of the increase in sexual assaults and the fact that it hasn't effectively been dealt with... but the tone that I get from her statement is that "Women wanted expanded roles in the military, then they got raped and then they wanted programs put in place to prevent this/treat victims of this and its costing us SO MUCH MONEY!"

Its one thing to bring up that the increase in rapes over the last few years indicates a problem that hasn't been effectively dealt with. But she's not just highlighting a problem, she's effectively blaming women for wanting more equality and not EXPECTING that they would be raped as a result of that. Sorry but that blame doesn't lie with the women who wanted to serve their country.