69 Million Married Women who changed their names may lose the right to vote under the SAVE act

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't make sense unless the give the husband both votes. Remember, this would only hurt women who changed their last name which is usually a conservative thing.

Changing your name is not a conservative thing-and even if it is now, it certainly wasn’t when my 80 year old mother did it.
Ugh.

Ok.

20% of married women who are Democrats or lean Democratic are twice as likely than the 10% of Republican and Republican-leaning women to answer that they wouldn't change their last name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a huge amount of misinformation in this thread. Real ID drivers license is not sufficient. States don’t have to accept BC + MC and can impose additional vague limits. This will end mail in voting and registration and will require a passport to vote. Only half of Americans have a passport.

Repeal of the 19th amendment is part of P2025. This is a step in that direction. Please read the below links for more details. If you think women have the right to vote, you should oppose this strenuously.


https://www.newsweek.com/married-women-stopped-voting-save-act-2029325

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/

I encourage you to read the bill itself.

I have.

The two articles above quote the bill directly and break down the effects. The regime frequently uses poorly written bills and EOs to help camouflage what they are doing. Providing clear, understandable analysis helps people understand these destructive bills.

I read the articles and the bill. Not concerned. The analysis was not persuasive. So the bill didn’t contemplate every permutation. That’s basically every bill written. That’s what regulations are for. Women will not be disenfranchised. That’s a ridiculous assertion on its face.

[b]
And roe will never be overturned.

I don't care. 4 reasons - 1) As a South Asian immigrant, premarital sex (or unprotected sex) is never on the table. Most of our teen and twenties go in studying hard and we don't have time to fux around. 2) We can fly back to South Asia to get a medical abortion for less than $50. 3) This impacts the White Christian women who voted for Trump and I think they deserve unhappiness and 4) Poor URMs are ok with having the babies.

The vast majority of abortions are due to the unviability of the fetus - babies that are wanted. People shouldn’t have to bleed out in the parking lot for medical care. Or, fly to Southeast Asia. How embarrassing that are you quoting the price of a south Asian abortion at $50. What about the cost of the flight, genius? And what about when you are miscarrying and going septic?. I guess you were one of the south Asians that wasn’t studying, and was in fact, fuxing around based on this incredibly embarrassing nonsense argument.

[Anonymous]

* The consequences of similar laws in states like Kansas demonstrate the harm that would be replicated nationwide: When Kansas implemented a proof-of-citizenship requirement, more than 31,000 otherwise eligible voters were blocked from registering, with the burden falling disproportionately on people of color and the elderly. If enacted at the federal level, the SAVE Act could prevent millions of eligible voters from participating in elections, reinforcing structural inequalities in political representation*




https://msmagazine.com/2025/02/11/safe-act-voter-registration-women-black-voting-rights/

[Anonymous]

Lol ok. Let me help you OP. This would never happen. Married women tend to vote red, and unmarried childless cat ladies, as our VP observed, vote blue.