A website for the proposed National Women's History Museum devotes a page to honoring Michele Bachmann for being a great mother. Nonetheless, yesterday Bachmann was one of just 33 representatives to vote against a bill that would do nothing more than create a bipartisan commission to study the possible construction of a women's museum on the National Mall in D.C. (383 representatives voted in favor.)
"As it's currently written, the legislation lacks the necessary safeguards to ensure that the proposed museum will not become an ideological shrine to abortion that will eventually receive federal funding and a prominent spot on the National Mall," Bachmann said on the House floor.
In making her case, Bachmann cited the fact that the same website that honors her also honors Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
"She's an abortion trailblazer and she is the founder of Planned Parenthood, which this body has sought to defund," Bachmann said. "I find Margaret Sanger's views highly offensive and yet she is featured over and over again as a women to extoll on this website and ultimately in this museum."
Long story short, unless the museum is committed to honoring God-fearing, all-American conservative women like her and nobody else, Bachmann won't support the creation of a committee to merely talk about it, let alone an actual museum.
"I rise today in opposition to this bill because I believe ultimately this museum that will be built on the National Mall, on federal land, will enshrine the radical feminist movement that stands against the pro-life movement the pro-family movement and the pro-traditional marriage movement," Bachmann said.
For a full transcript of Bachmann's remarks and video of her testimony, click to page two.
Here's the transcript followed by the video:
I'd like to stipulate first of all that all Republican women are pro-women and all Republican men that serve in this Congress are pro-women, as are the Democrat women and Democrat men in this Congress. A no vote on the current legislation, which I advocate for, very simply is a vote to stand up for the pro-life movement, a vote to stand up for traditional marriage, and a vote to stand up for the traditional family.
There already are 20 women's museums in the United States, including one affiliated with the Smithsonian Museum and including one right next to the United States Capitol. And so why would we be building another? I rise today in opposition to this bill because I believe ultimately this museum that will be built on the National Mall, on federal land, will enshrine the radical feminist movement that stands against the pro-life movement, the pro-family movement, and the pro-traditional marriage movement.
The [goal] of celebrating women is admirable, it's shared by everyone in this chamber -- no one disputes that. And a few of the museum's proposed exhibits are worthy -- no one disputes that. I for one am honored to be featured in an online exhibit about motherhood that highlights our 23 foster children and our five biological children. However, I am deeply concerned that [worthy] exhibits are the exception and not the rule.
A cursory view of the overall content already listed on the website shows an overwhelming bias toward women who embrace liberal ideology, radical feminism, and fails to paint an accurate picture of the lives and actions of American women throughout our history. Among the most troubling examples is the museum's glowing review of the woman who embraced [the] eugenics movement in the United States, Margaret Sanger. She's an abortion trailblazer and she is the founder of Planned Parenthood, which this body has sought to defund. Yet the museum glosses over Margaret Sanger's avid support for the sterilization of women and abortion and the elimination of chosen ethnic groups, particularly African Americans, and classes of people. [Bachmann's claim about Sanger being an advocate of genocide against blacks isn't accepted by fact-checkers.] I find Margaret Sanger's views highly offensive and yet she is featured over and over again as a woman to extoll on this website and ultimately in this museum.
Adding in a conservative woman to balance out Sanger's inclusion does not alleviate the fact the the museum tries to whitewash her abhorrent views and props Margaret Sanger up as a role model for our daughters and for our granddaughters.
The list of troubling examples goes on, including the fact they leave out the pro-life views of the early suffragettes. But let's face it -- we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't the museum's ultimate goal to get a place on the National Mall of land and federal funding. If you look at their authorizing legislation, you'll see -- it was the template for this legislation. Begin with the commission, then congressional approval, and finally, federal funding. For 16 years this group has tried to raise financial support and the museum has only been able to raise enough to cover the current operating expenses and salaries of those trying to get this museum. Nothing has gone toward the $400 million for [the] building.
As it's currently written, the legislation lacks the necessary safeguards to ensure that the proposed museum will not become an ideological shrine to abortion that will eventually receive federal funding and a prominent spot on the National Mall. I thank the leading pro-life groups like Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Susan B. Anthony List, Heritage Action, among others, who have been outspoken on standing up for the right to life for all Americans and an accurate portrayal of American women. Since these concerns have not been adequately addressed, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against HR 863.