W. A. Lawrence: Republicans Will Detonate Their Secret Weapon at the Midnight Hour to Stop Women from Voting

[AStern]

The Republican Senate will pass the SAVE Act at the midnight hour before the midterms, and tens of millions of women will discover their names don’t match their birth certificates when fixing the crisis has become impossible.

Imagine arriving at your polling place in November only to be turned away because you changed your name when you got married. You’ve voted for 20 years with valid identification. Nothing matters. The SAVE Act passed the House in April, and 69 million American women are about to discover their names don’t match their birth certificates while the deadline to fix the problem has already closed.

You arrive at your polling place the same as every election since 2004 with the same precinct, same poll workers, and same ritual of civic participation, but this time the worker scans your driver’s license, frowns, types into the computer, then looks up with an apologetic expression that will replay in nightmares.

“I’m sorry, but your documents don’t match. Your license says Martinez, but your birth certificate says Chen. I can’t give you a ballot.”

https://wendy664.substack.com/p/republicans-will-detonate-their-secret

[slightlv]

1. I don't doubt something like this is coming...

I've been yelling for years they want to stop women from voting. But to this article, in particular, I wonder... if you've gone through all the hassle, spent all the money, gathered the necessary documents from around the country, and FINALLY made it to your "Real ID"... will that be enough? Or is the REAL ID not going to be "Real" enough for them any longer? Oh... try to stop me from voting. I'll be jailed, no doubt, because of my mouth and my actions. I've voted in every election... city, county, school board, state, and federal since I was 18, even while I was in the Air Force. I WILL bloody scream like murder if they try to stop THIS veteran from exercising her rights!

[maptap22]

8. And I will be right there with you .... also woman veteran here, voted in every election since I was 18

Would this be the thing to finally wake R woman up to the fact that they think we are second class citizens?

[Skittles]

2. I wish women would stop changing their names

nothing says inequality like giving up your identity

[LymphocyteLover]

9. Sure, but it has been traditional to do so for centuries and shouldn't be used to keep women from voting

[Skittles]

12. "traditional"

as in "sexist"

[LymphocyteLover]

13. Yes... I'm just saying a lot of women did this just out of tradition and not thinking about it and they shouldn't

be punished

[Skittles]

16. and I'm just saying I wish they'd stop doing it

[LymphocyteLover]

17. I wish that too. I just don't want the women who did this getting their voting rights taken away

[Skittles]

18. also allowing themselves to be "given away" from one man to another

JFC

[FakeNoose]

3. R women would be locked out from voting, maybe even more than Democratic women

I don't believe this scenario would ever really happen, and the Repukes would be stupid to try it. They would lose a good portion of their own voters by doing this.

Aren't liberal/Dem/blue voters more likely to be using their own birthnames, while R women are more likely to have changed to their husband's name?

[nilram]

4. And we know 7 Democrats who will help them.

[LymphocyteLover]

10. Really? I don't know any Dem who would vote for this. We're the party of voting and this bill is an abomination.

[nilram]

11. We are at the party of the fourth amendment, and human rights

And yet seven Democrats voted to continue and expand ICE funding.

[LymphocyteLover]

14. The ICE thing was complicated as it's in a big appropriations bill and there is more urgnecy to fund the govt

There's no good reason for Dems to help pass the SAVE Act.

I'm not saying it won't happen but I just doubt they will.

[nilram]

15. Thanks. I'm skeptical that things won't get complicated

around the SAVE act also. I'll try to be more optimistic.

I think if the Dems made it clear they were shutting down the government in order to shut down ICE, there would have been a LOT of public support for that. Unfortunately the media doesn't know how to fairly report on D talking points. And, it's true that the economy is on a knife's edge because of all the other uncertainties that the administration is creating. I'll concede there were a lot of reasons to roll over, but there doesn't seem to have been any pushback at all.

[LymphocyteLover]

19. This piece was informative IMO on the ICE maneuvers

While House Democratic leadership has come out saying it’ll vote against the DHS portion of the package — and a sweeping chunk of the House Democratic caucus is expected to do the same, including many Democratic appropriators in the House — those who plan to support the measure claim that the stuff the bill does to curtail ICE is better than nothing. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat on the House Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, has suggested voting for the bill is better than giving DHS a “blank check” in the form of a continuing resolution that Republicans would likely try to push through.

The details of the bill, per NBC News:

The package would keep ICE funding essentially flat at $10 billion for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, even as the agency received $75 billion of additional money for detention and enforcement from Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democratic appropriator, acknowledged that the package did not include broad reforms to rein in ICE in a statement from her office announcing the bill. But she endorsed the package, saying it would prevent a partial shutdown and arguing that it did include some Democratic priorities.

Those supposed priorities include funding to force ICE agents to wear body cams and language that “encourages” DHS to create a new uniform policy that would “ensure that law enforcement officers are clearly identifiable as Federal law enforcement.” It also includes some cuts to Trump’s sweeping deportation budget: it “would also cut funding for ICE enforcement and removal operations by $115 million and reduce the number of ICE detention beds by 5,500.”

What really matters is how Senate Democrats respond once the legislation is brought up for a vote in the upper chamber, as Republicans will need support from at least seven Democrats to pass the bill. The Senate does not return until next week, so how exactly individual senators and Democratic leadership in the upper chamber plans to approach the appropriations bill will be clearer then.

But a few Senate Democrats have spoken out against the DHS portion of the bill. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has been calling for Democrats to oppose funding for DHS since at least last week. After the bill text was released Tuesday, he issued a statement saying it “puts no meaningful constraints on the growing lawlessness of ICE, and increases funding for detention over the last Appropriations bill passed in 2024.”

Over the weekend some other Senate Democrats followed his lead, with Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) telling CNN Sunday that Democrats should withhold their votes on DHS funding even if it means shutting down that portion of the government.

“We cannot vote for anything that actually adds more money and doesn’t constrain ICE,” he said. “I can’t speak for everybody else, but if I have to shut down the portion of ICE — just to be clear, we’re not shutting down the rest of the government — the portion of ICE that is causing this kind of harm, racially profiling people, terrorizing our cities, I know the implications of that. I know the political implications potentially of that.

“But we cannot keep funding this type of goon squads that are just spreading throughout the whole country just to enforce some weird policy position that Stephen Miller has, where he thinks that we have to punish blue cities,” he continued.

Those who support the legislation in the Senate, like top Democratic appropriator Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), are selling it as a way to claw back some of the funding cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency last year. Murray also suggested protesting the DHS portion of the bill is useless.

“ICE must be reined in, and unfortunately, neither a (continuing resolution) nor a shutdown would do anything to restrain it, because, thanks to Republicans, ICE is now sitting on a massive slush fund it can tap whether or not we pass a funding bill,” Murray told NBC. “The suggestion that a shutdown in this moment might curb the lawlessness of this administration is not rooted in reality.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/house-dems-rally-against-dhs-funding-bill-but-the-senate-is-where-the-real-fight-happens

[SunSeeker]

5. The SAVE Act passed the House and is in the Senate.

Where Republicans are trying to make it even more draconian.


https://www.newsweek.com/republican-reveals-plans-change-save-act-requirements-11384723

[Baitball Blogger]

6. What if you legally did a name change and

Have a certificate to prove it?

[ColoringFool]

7. FINALLY, The DEMISE Of The Republican Party!