SAVE Act is a DISASTER for WOMEN

clovenhooves The Personal Is Political General SAVE Act is a DISASTER for WOMEN

SAVE Act is a DISASTER for WOMEN

SAVE Act is a DISASTER for WOMEN

Myrth
Fiesty Crone 🧙‍♀️

32

Yesterday, 7:30 AM

#1

H.R. 22 is a DISASTER FOR WOMEN.

The SAVE Act will make it impossible to vote if your ID does not match your birth certificate. Women disproportionately change their names when they marry. This means, if you changed your name, you will need a passport. Poor women would be deprived of their right to vote if they can’t afford to get a passport.

It is expected to be called for a vote in the House today.

Call your congressional representative. Tell him or her to vote NO.

202-224-3121 is the switchboard. Call and they will connect you with your representative.

Myrth

Fiesty Crone 🧙‍♀️

Yesterday, 7:30 AM #1

H.R. 22 is a DISASTER FOR WOMEN.

The SAVE Act will make it impossible to vote if your ID does not match your birth certificate. Women disproportionately change their names when they marry. This means, if you changed your name, you will need a passport. Poor women would be deprived of their right to vote if they can’t afford to get a passport.

It is expected to be called for a vote in the House today.

Call your congressional representative. Tell him or her to vote NO.

202-224-3121 is the switchboard. Call and they will connect you with your representative.

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

718

Yesterday, 10:21 AM

#2

This is so depressing. I remember reading the news about this being introduced, and now here we are, it's being possibly voted on today.

The "good" news is that there are a lot of positive amendments attached to this bill, unsurprisingly all by the Democrat party: https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-22

10:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married woman voters.

19:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to the disenfranchisement of any eligible voter who is a victim of domestic violence.

21:

Quote:Ensures that individuals who changed their names, including married women, are not disenfranchised. Also ensures that rural voters are not disenfranchised.

Although it looks like amendment 21 was defeated? Sigh...

Disgusting country.

Edited Yesterday, 10:21 AM by Clover.

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Yesterday, 10:21 AM #2

This is so depressing. I remember reading the news about this being introduced, and now here we are, it's being possibly voted on today.

The "good" news is that there are a lot of positive amendments attached to this bill, unsurprisingly all by the Democrat party: https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-22

10:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married woman voters.

19:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to the disenfranchisement of any eligible voter who is a victim of domestic violence.

21:

Quote:Ensures that individuals who changed their names, including married women, are not disenfranchised. Also ensures that rural voters are not disenfranchised.

Although it looks like amendment 21 was defeated? Sigh...

Disgusting country.

Myrth
Fiesty Crone 🧙‍♀️

32

Yesterday, 10:53 AM

#3

(Yesterday, 10:21 AM)Clover This is so depressing. I remember reading the news about this being introduced, and now here we are, it's being possibly voted on today.

The "good" news is that there are a lot of positive amendments attached to this bill, unsurprisingly all by the Democrat party: https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-22

10:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married woman voters.

19:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to the disenfranchisement of any eligible voter who is a victim of domestic violence.

21:

Quote:Ensures that individuals who changed their names, including married women, are not disenfranchised. Also ensures that rural voters are not disenfranchised.

Although it looks like amendment 21 was defeated? Sigh...

Disgusting country.

Yes, the amendment was defeated as far as I can tell. They said before the election that women’s suffrage was a mistake. And they fully intend to take away our rights. ALL OF THEM.

Myrth

Fiesty Crone 🧙‍♀️

Yesterday, 10:53 AM #3

(Yesterday, 10:21 AM)Clover This is so depressing. I remember reading the news about this being introduced, and now here we are, it's being possibly voted on today.

The "good" news is that there are a lot of positive amendments attached to this bill, unsurprisingly all by the Democrat party: https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-22

10:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married woman voters.

19:

Quote:Prevents the bill from taking effect within a state unless the state certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to the disenfranchisement of any eligible voter who is a victim of domestic violence.

21:

Quote:Ensures that individuals who changed their names, including married women, are not disenfranchised. Also ensures that rural voters are not disenfranchised.

Although it looks like amendment 21 was defeated? Sigh...

Disgusting country.

Yes, the amendment was defeated as far as I can tell. They said before the election that women’s suffrage was a mistake. And they fully intend to take away our rights. ALL OF THEM.

VerdantHorizon

25

Yesterday, 11:19 AM

#4

So has it been voted on already? I called and was told my rep already voted in favor of it, but I'm not seeing any news more recent than 17 hours ago.

VerdantHorizon

Yesterday, 11:19 AM #4

So has it been voted on already? I called and was told my rep already voted in favor of it, but I'm not seeing any news more recent than 17 hours ago.

eyeswideopen

21

Yesterday, 11:25 AM

#5

Stiill needs to pass the Senate - hopefully Dems will be able to stop it from going through there, but who knows.

eyeswideopen

Yesterday, 11:25 AM #5

Stiill needs to pass the Senate - hopefully Dems will be able to stop it from going through there, but who knows.

Myrth
Fiesty Crone 🧙‍♀️

32

Yesterday, 5:35 PM

#6

(Yesterday, 11:19 AM)VerdantHorizon So has it been voted on already? I called and was told my rep already voted in favor of it, but I'm not seeing any news more recent than 17 hours ago.

The news has been eerily quiet about it. The only thing I have seen thus far is this article, and I don’t trust the source, and have not been able to verify yet. But apparently it stalled in the House due to Republican defections. Maybe making noise really helped sway some votes.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/roy-save-act-house/2025/04/01/id/1205265/

Edited Yesterday, 5:46 PM by Myrth.

Myrth

Fiesty Crone 🧙‍♀️

Yesterday, 5:35 PM #6

(Yesterday, 11:19 AM)VerdantHorizon So has it been voted on already? I called and was told my rep already voted in favor of it, but I'm not seeing any news more recent than 17 hours ago.

The news has been eerily quiet about it. The only thing I have seen thus far is this article, and I don’t trust the source, and have not been able to verify yet. But apparently it stalled in the House due to Republican defections. Maybe making noise really helped sway some votes.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/roy-save-act-house/2025/04/01/id/1205265/

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)