admin
The latest culture-war skirmish landed squarely in Congress this week when U.S. Representative Ben Cline filed H.R. 9701, the “Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Integrity Act.” The bill would change the DAR’s federal charter to make membership limited to “women” as the law defines them — and the definition in the text is explicitly biological. This is not a university policy memo or a social-media dustup. It’s a piece of legislation aimed at a congressionally‑chartered organization, and it deserves plain talk.
What H.R. 9701 would do to the DAR federal charter
The bill would amend Title 36, the section of U.S. law that contains the DAR’s charter, to say a member must be “a woman” and meet the DAR’s genealogical rules. It goes further by defining “woman” as “an adult human female” and spelling out female biologically — referring to the reproductive system that produces and uses ova. Representative Ben Cline is the sponsor, the bill lists House cosponsors, and it was sent to the House Judiciary Committee. Conservative groups quickly endorsed the move and called it “common-sense” protection of a women’s organization.
Why this bill arrived: the DAR vote and conflicting claims
This move follows the DAR’s recent Continental Congress meeting, where delegates rejected an internal resolution that would have required applicants to be “born female.” That internal vote angered members who wanted a stricter, birth‑based rule and prompted lawmakers to step in. In the fog of headlines you may also have seen claims that five U.S. senators had filed a companion bill — but the public legislative record shows H.R. 9701 was introduced in the House by Rep. Cline. No identical Senate filing with those named senators appears in official records at this time, so if senators have signaled support, they should say so clearly on the record instead of letting confusion spread.
Legal and political fallout: courts, charters and common sense
Make no mistake: Congress can amend a Title 36 charter. But changing a federal charter to set private membership rules will touch off legal fights about free association, discrimination law, and the proper reach of congressional power. Opponents will sue, and courts will have to balance statutory authority against constitutional claims. Politically, this bill lands in the same lane as other Republican efforts to protect sex‑based spaces and rules. That’s no accident. Conservatives who care about protecting women’s institutions should support clarity on membership — but hard work to win hearts and minds matters more than piling federal rules on private groups.
Bottom line: clarity, courage and common sense
Republicans should not panic or posture. H.R. 9701 is a clear, narrowly aimed response to a real dispute inside a congressionally‑chartered organization. If lawmakers are going to rewrite a charter, they should do so with sober legal advice and public hearings, not headlines and hearsay. The DAR, the bill’s sponsor, and any senators who say they back this effort need to be straight with the public about what they want and why. The question isn’t just who gets a membership card — it’s whether conservatives prefer winning by clarity and conviction or by letting confusion hand the moral high ground to their opponents. My money’s on clarity. And yes, that means calling things by their biological names when it matters.
