House Democrats Unanimously Vote Against Women's History Museum... Can You Guess Why?
House Democrats unanimously voted this week against legislation to build a new women’s history museum on the National Mall.
The reason was an amendment that limited the exhibits to biological women to the exclusion of transgender figures.
The museum failed 204-216 as House Democrats hoped that they could still secure a museum including transgender figures once they retake power after the midterm elections.
The amendment drafted by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., states in part, “The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements and lived experiences of biological women in the United States.”
It further mandated that the museum would not depict “any biological male as female.”
The vote was notable after the release of the DNC “autopsy” report that flagged how transgender and identity politics contributed to the defeat in the last election.
The report specifically noted the success of Trump’s “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” ad.
The report noted that “If the Vice President would not change her position — and she did not — then there was nothing which would have worked as a response.”
The fact that this was a unanimous vote among Democratic members is particularly notable and suggests that transgender issues will remain a rallying point for the Democrats.
Democratic members called the exclusion a “poison pill” amendment.
In the meantime, transgender issues continue to occupy the courts with a major decision by the Colorado Supreme Court this week that ordered Colorado’s largest provider of gender-affirming care for young people to resume medical treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
That puts Children’s Hospital Colorado in direct conflict with the Department of Health and Human Services, which has moved to block federal support for institutions providing such care.
Justice William Wood III wrote that “We conclude that the actual immediate and irreparable harm to petitioners outweighs the speculative harm CHC may face if the federal government further acts against it.”
In his dissent, Justice Brian Boatright said that this was hardly a speculative matter, but “a decision driven by the direct threat to the viability of the entire hospital.”
Here is the opinion: Boe v. Child.’s Hosp. Colo.