I'm conflicted about the whole article and/or issue.
On the one hand, these women were pioneers. They were the first women to fly US military aircraft, the first female military flight instructors, etc. Good on them. But that's about all I can say. Maybe that's worthy of a congressional gold medal. I guess if the 1980 hockey team gets one, they can have one too. It doesn't mean all that much to me.
At the same time I don't buy the "they were an indispensable part of the war effort" argument. Did they free up male pilots to head into combat? Maybe. The army air corps produced something on the order of 190,000 new pilots during the war. So, somehow, just over a half percent of the pilots, who served in the air force were "indispensable"? What about the civilian men who performed the same function but couldn't fly in combat because they were too old or disqualified for some other reason? The way I see it, these ladies were civilian contractors, no more, no less. Sorry ladies, you took a fairly dangerous job for your day, got paid crap wages, and managed to serve your country in the process but you weren't in the military. What they got in return was a sense of accomplishment and the chance to fly some of the coolest aircraft in American history but I don't think that earns them "veteran" status.