VerboseDood61
10647
696
8
Holy Handmaid's Tale, Batman... What do we do to oppose this?
Apr 11, 2025 4:52 PM
VerboseDood61
10647
696
8
Holy Handmaid's Tale, Batman... What do we do to oppose this?
notagoodspelller
Lost in this is the LGBTQ+ community. My son just got his name legally changed on everything, including passport. Now he may not be able to leave/re-enter the country or vote because his certificate of live birth doesn't match who he is now.
taez555
XXXSpork
Now there will be a law forcing women to take their husbands names when they marry.
MAup
I have heard a few things and i want to ask questions.
Can you change the name on the certificate? Can you vote if you have either a passport, certificate or a
HeadFullOfEmpty
if some of the people making these decisions were unalived it might make some of the others at least think about it; there just seems to be no consequences at the moment
RalphH
Pretty sure for people with names not in latin script* this will also be a problem. (*and strange letters like ä ô â ...)
VorpalPlayer
Didn't JD Vance change his name like three times?
PolitiCat
Be prepared. Get a gun. Soon they will come "knocking".
OhIfIMust
I'm sick to my stomach reading all this; the jackboots are already kicking in doors, and everyone's thinking that surely they won't come for THEM. Every one of us is on the hit-list, it's just a question of how far down.
usernametakenisthestoryofmylife
Last year, they announced if you were an expat registered in Florida (Don't know if other states were included, but FL for sure) you had to re-register to vote. And via snail mail, because you needed to show an authentic signature. I found out in March of 24, and downloaded and filled out the forms and sent them immediately (from Brazil) . DeJoy's postal service made sure to delay it as long as possible. I received registration on November 15th. I didn't vote. 8 months. Registered mail. 1/n...
usernametakenisthestoryofmylife
Afterwards, talking to my sister in the US, she said they did this because majority of expats are Democrats. I still ask myself how this could happen? I've trid to trace the registered mail, but US postal service points to Brazil, blah blah, untraceable. It was a sad moment.
SergeyPrkl
Americans are okay with this. there is nothing to see here.
LuminoZero
Be willing to kill for your rights or be prepares to die for them.
OhIfIMust
Or, as far too many people seem to be doing, just give them up altogether.
LanceSackless
This is for when you register to vote, either for the first time or when you move states, right? Not saying thats OK but clarification is important
Cyclicus
Hekatombe
Are you sure it would be possible even if it matches their name?
(from 2021):
TogeEpine
nero4ty2
My wife can’t get a real id because our state won’t recognize a marriage certificate from the state or federal docs from the ssa or a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship, it’s madness, we’ve been multiple times and Karen always just says we need more paperwork but can’t tell us what it is. She was born in the us to citizens of the us but can’t get an id to vote, shits fucked yo
Vallete
ElbowDeepinaTinyOctopus
It's slightly more insidious, because it will only affect existing voters if they move or have to re-register, IIRC. It will naturally strip women over time who can't pay the devised poll-tax of Passports (the difficulty of obtaining which may well change...)
sorryforsayingthat
Back in the good old days, a woman couldn't have a bank account or a credit card without permission from a male family member or their husband. That was fixed in 1974 and I'm sure they want to change it back
JackingMeHoff
Married women who took their husbands last name can't match their birth certificate name. Get a passport. A passport is an official goverment proof of identity document.
MyCatIsMissingAnEar
And is like $160 and applications are only available at certain locations... that's a huge barrier for a lot of people
horseman05
captainalphabet
jfc can the upri sing pls start--
MioTaalas
So women will, en mass, stop taking their husbands name and keep theirs?
override367
Wont help, women who are married and dont take their husband's name will not be able to vote at all
fractalsphere
If you can't prove your citizenship to vote, you ALSO can't prove your citizenship to not be deported to a prison 3000 miles away with zero due process. Let THAT ONE sink in.
OhIfIMust
Oh, it's sinking in, all right.
FiftyShadesOfTiramisu
There are still lots of American citizens without any kind of ID. Never got a driver's license, birth certificate got lost. 9 million Americans can't produce a proof of citizenship on short notice according to https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily
preparanoid
Auschwitz was not in Germany, remember this.
rcgom
w/o due process you'll never get a *chance to prove your citizenship
dreammer243
BastardMan1977
But the black woman laughed weird
TheWombatStrikesAgain
And let's not forget the price of eggs we don't care about anymore, because money is overrated but Trump will make us so rich!
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
Buttery males!
MCFLYYY
Here's the thing though. I bet you at least 50% of the MAGA women voters would gladly give up their right to vote if it meant keeping that black woman out of office and it meant preventing all those dumb liberal women who are obviously ruining this country from voting.
usingYourMomAsAHat
I'm pretty sure she also owns a tan suit
DVSBSTrD
Hillary is black?
W0lfsbl00d
Ah yes, a reference to how they said the same shit about Hillary... Women are not allowed exuberant joy in the American Reich.
xmaneds
no, in the most recent presidential election in 2024, Trump's opponent was Vice President Kamala Harris
graehall
I ain't listening to anyone who voted for Trump telling me someone else laughed weird, Trump is broken, that fucker can't sincerely laugh
LurkingSarcasm
She would literally tank the stock market and have us on the brink of WW3!!
KafkasKarma
Every accusation and such...
Cinammontoastcrunch
Unlike you liberals I don't listen to my feelings, I listen to reality! *Ignores the world's top economists saying trump will cause a recession and Kamala will grow the economy"
SFuhr
Another reason to never get married, any and all benefits being married used to get you has been getting stripped away and replaced with punishments, christ and they wonder why nobody is having kids.
dontfeerthereefer
But what if you need to produce a marriage certificate or have a letter from your male “guardian” to access government benefits? /s
TheVampireDante
In the trumpublican view of the future America, women won't have the choice if they get married or not, or have multiple babies to feed the slave labor forces the government demands. It will be decided for them and they'll like it or be punished harshly. All in the name of their religion: Fascism.
TheWombatStrikesAgain
They know that. Disempowering women is their way of fixing it. If you have no rights, no job, no future, you have no alternatives to being a domestic slave and broodmare.
EroticZombiePants
Plus, they need everyone to keep breeding to keep supplying the machine with new wage-slaves for when the old ones drop dead at work.
MapleSyrupMafia
Back to pre-70's where women couldn't open a bank account without their husband...
Trelis
But...
1) doesn't birth certificate show the name at .... birth?
2) why do they need to show their birth certificate when voting? do men?
3) so name can be change on birth certificate, trans people will love this I guess.
Gerokeymaster
The new law they're trying to pass makes it so just a driver's license alone is no longer considered proof of citizenship. So you either have to show a passport, or a drivers license *and* a birth certificate, with a name that matches on both. The reason that it's predominantly affecting women is because men very rarely change their last name when they get married, but women almost always do, meaning their married name on their drivers license won't match the name on their birth certificate.
elfowl
it will take a driver's license as long as it's "Real ID" which a lot of people's are without even realizing. I didn't notice mine was until I checked. Just look for a black or gold star (or a bear?) in the top right corner
Gerokeymaster
That's actually only true in five states. While real ID is mentioned in the wording of the law as an acceptable form of identification, it specifically has to be real ID that has a citizenship marker on it, since non-citizens can also get real ID licenses, and only the states of MI, MN, NY, VT, and WA specifically have a marker on their real IDs to confirm citizenship. If you're from any of the other 45 states, currently, a real ID alone wouldn't meet that law's new standards.
dantetsaronis
The entire point of this bill - which has passed the House and now will easily pass in the Senate - is to suppress voters that are less likely to agree with the current regime, including transgender citizens and women that have chosen to change their name since their birth certificate was issued, in addition to those in poor living situations (read: poverty and disproportionately BIPOC and urban) that can't easily lay their hands on their certified documentation or may have a discrepancy since.
dantetsaronis
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text
IhopeyougetstageIIIcoloncancer
A lot of places will NOT change the name on a birth certificate. So if your legal name is different... that's it. You will have no venue to vote unless you legally change your current name back to your birth name.
Ivain
Its not about the name ON the birth certificate changing, it's about the ID and Birth Certificate not matching.
IhopeyougetstageIIIcoloncancer
Yeah. And I'm saying because the birth certificate can't change, the IDs won't match if your name was changed at any point. There's no mechanism to reconcile the birth certificate to match the new ID.
Ivain
Which is basically the aim of this BS 'rule' because it lets them disefranchise millions of voters at will and grant 'exceptions' or other cherrypick solutions to only grant their own voterbase their rights back.
n0n53n53
The bill states that voters need to present documentary proof of citizenship in person. For the vast majority of Americans, this would be a passport or birth certificate. Government-issued driver’s licenses—including REAL IDs—as well as military or tribal IDs do not satisfy the bill’s requirements. 69 M American women do not have a birth certificate with their legal name on it and thereby could not use their birth certificate to prove citizenship.
elfowl
The bill specifically lists REAL ID as being accepted without any supporting documents, (Birth certificate)
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
this is literally war. not only is the SAVE act unconstitutional, it disenfranchises tens of millions of voters. this is the kind of rights violation this country was founded to defy.
xmaneds
SithElephant is correct; the country was founded to support the rights of white male landowners (i.e. wealthy white men). at the time of the country founding -- 10 years before the bill of right was invented -- the constitution didn't say anything about voting until 1789. And women were not allowed to vote for the next 130 years. so there's your constitution for ya
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
"No taxation without representation."
LetsHaveReasonPeople
Well, they couldn't have amended the constitution during those 10 years, because it did not yet exist. The government during the revolutionary war was formed under the articles of confederation.
SithElephant
No, it very much was not. There is no positive federal right to vote at all in the constitution. At the time of the emancipation of women, nobody argued that 'of course' poor people, or 'of course' those just over 18 had the right to vote federally, and there had to be amendments on these topics.
nation543
The most accurate description that can be given to a Libertarian is somebody who just wants to own guns and smoke weed; they're Republican, otherwise. The biggest tell between the two is that Republicans are dumb, and typically can't form coherent sentences like you did.
These days, however, it's difficult to figure out the Russian trolls from the Russian shills.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
the power to manage elections is granted by the constitution to the states, explicitly. the federal government has no authority to restrict those elections.
nation543
I think that's where the problem lies. Republican-led states will do everything they can to gerrymander every single district, thereby guaranteeing them power for life when a minority want them there. If the federal government were given some control or oversight over everything then Republicans will have a harder time hiding their shit.
sinestroxlodx
The amendments are a part of the constitution. They are a federal guarantee to the right to vote.
SithElephant
No, they are not. Very explicitly not. The nineteenth amendment for example says 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. ' as long as you are not targetting the fact they are women, it is quite legal to deprive women the vote on some other ground.
xmaneds
SithElephant, I am sorry that people cannot perfom enough critical thinking to understand why your comments are correct. your interpretations are obviously accurate to me
SithElephant
(As long as you also deprive men on the same ground)
SithElephant
If this wasn't the case, then later amendments (which share the same issue) on poll tax, and age wouldn't have been needed.
unsneakyLurker
By that logic it's fine to make any woman who's been pregnant ineligible to vote (those hormones make em emotional and illogical, donchaknow), as long as men who've been pregnant are also ineligible.
MarsIsAfire
Of course they are, but remember, the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until 2 years after The Constitution, and the 19th wasn't ratified until 1920.
sinestroxlodx
Yep. Regardless of ratification date, when determining if something is constitutional the Supreme Court uses the whole document. Not just the initial document signed in 1798.
boognish115
True but the conservative justices are “originalists” when it comes to the constitution, and that just doesn’t make me feel too confident they respect the outcomes of the amendments much.
MarsIsAfire
Right, I'm just talking about this thread, where someone references what the country was "founded to do". Or w/e. Actually, I think @sinestroxlodx is getting DV'd by mob-pile-on. It's so very difficult to have any nuanced opinion on here, I've all but given up on it. I usually try to just state some facts (like the ratification dates) and hope other like-minded people can figure out the nuance themselves.