Two lawsuits have been filed seeking information about the U.S. military's plan to use women to "close with and kill" the enemy, based on reports that suggest having women in "tip of the spear" fighting units such as the Rangers and the Navy SEALs may be counterproductive.

The Obama administration announced two years ago it would make female military personnel eligible for assignment to direct ground combat units, including the infantry, beginning in January 2016. Under the military's structure, women would be ordered into such positions.

Various military agencies and units since then have been analyzing the safety and effectiveness of the strategy along with the Center for Military Readiness, an independent group.

Lawyers with the Thomas More Law Center have submitted a number of Freedom of Information Act requests for details on behalf of CMR and its president, Elaine Donnelly, without effect.

TRENDING: Alan Dershowitz sues CNN to halt 'malicious' attacks on innocent people

So the law team announced it has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Special Operations Command in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan and a second against the Army in federal court in Washington.

Both are on behalf of Donnelly and seek records "related to the effectiveness of women in direct combat roles."

Since founding CMR in 1993, Donnelly has researched and reported on social policy in military service. She recently has worked with Erin Mersino, senior trial counsel for Thomas More, on the information requests.

"Adherence to the FOIA is crucial because it allows the public access to our government," Mersino said. "The documents we requested under FOIA are time sensitive. Permanent decisions regarding women in the infantry are projected to be made as soon as January 2016. The public should be informed of such important matters that directly affect our national security."

When Obama announced his plan for women to hit the trenches, there were a few women who volunteered for tests, and CMR reported even that number is dwindling.

Read "Deadly Consequences" for the story about how Obama's military strategy is "dead set on eviscerating our military by pushing women to the front lines."

"Obtaining the documents asked for in the lawsuits will allow Elaine Donnelly to analyze the safety and effectiveness of allowing women in the infantry and provide its findings and analysis to the public and to the military at a crucial point in time," the lawyers argue.

"Of particular interest … is the attempt by the Pentagon to insert women into the one of the most grueling training regimens in the entire military establishment, the U.S. Army Rangers. The deep concern now is that the Pentagon will reduce the physical requirements so that women will pass."

Richard Thompson, the chief counsel for Thomas More, said the "question is not whether women should serve in combat, they already do, and admirably."

"The question is whether women should purposely be placed in situations where they must close with the enemy in extremes of physical endurance, climate and terrain, brutal and violent death, injury, horror, and fear, just to satisfy the feminist agenda," he said.

"Too many generals in the Pentagon know better, but they succumb to political pressure acting more like politicians than true military leaders. They already know that the end result will be compromised standards, destruction of the effectiveness of units like the Rangers and Navy SEALs, and disruption of the warrior spirit and ethos so carefully nurtured over the years."

Most recently, Donnelly cited a report from Britain on the same issue.

The British Ministry of Defense released its report with "conflicted" evidence regarding "combat effectiveness" when women are added to ground troops.

Highlighting the "physiological differences, cohesion, and related factors," it finds that "gender-integration problems" could be "mitigated."

But Donnelly's analysis notes the report admits, that if "the steps necessary to mitigate the risks are grossly disproportionate in terms of time, resources and cost," that nation's previous exclusion of women from ground combat troops "may have to remain in place."

Donnelly succinctly sums up the report: "There are no benefits balancing the weight of costs and risks that detract from combat readiness and effectiveness. … Every use of the word 'mitigate' in the MOD report pinpoints a problem, not an advantage."

She pointed out the simple goal of the military: "To close with and kill the enemy."

The British study acknowledges that in that work, "violent death, injury, all-pervading concussive noise, horror, fear, blood and high levels of emotion are common themes."

Significantly, the report found simple physiological differences "disadvantage women in strength-based and aerobic fitness tests by 20 percent to 40 percent, so for the same output women have to work harder than men."

Size, stamina, injury susceptibility, morbidity, trauma, loads all are factors, the study said.

It reported 4.5 percent of women enlisting in the British Army are able to achieve [physical employment] standards, compared with 90 percent of the men.

WND previously reported on the studies in the U.S.

A Marine study showed for every man who fails a simulated artillery lift-and-carry test, 28 women fail. And for a test simulating moving over a seven-foot high wall, less than 1.2 percent of the men could not get over, compared to 21.32 percent of women.

The results were found in Marine Corps documentation by the Center for Military Readiness, which earlier issued a report called "U.S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?"

According to CMR, the Obama administration expects the Marine Corps to find a way to assign women to ground combat units without lowering standards.

"In the independent view of CMR, quantitative research done so far indicates that these expectations cannot be met," the group said

"Androgenic characteristics in men, which are not going to change, account for greater muscle power and aerobic (endurance) capabilities that are essential for survival and mission accomplishment in direct ground combat," the report said.

According to the CMR study's executive summary, the Marines obtained information from 409 men and 379 women who volunteered to perform five "proxy" tests to simulate combat demands.

"These capabilities are essential for survival and mission success in direct ground combat," the study found.

In a pull-up test, women averaged 3.59 while men averaged 15.69 – more than four times as many.

A "clean and press" comprised single lifts of 70, 80, 95 and 115 pounds plus six repetitions of a 65 pound lift. Eighty percent of the men passed the 115 pound test but only 8.7 percent of the women.

In the 120 mm tank loading simulation, participants were asked to lift a simulated round weighing 55 pounds five times in 35 seconds or less. Men failed at a less than 1 percent rate while women failed at a rate of 18.68 percent.

The Marines said nearly one in five women "could not complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time."

A separate report from Israel National News reported a book, "Lochamot Betzahal," confirmed the results of 13 years of research on female participation in IDF combat units and declared the feminist experiment in the Israeli military a failure.

The New York Post reported fewer than 8 percent of Army women wanted a combat job.