How the Republican War on Women Extends to Voting Rights
newrepublic.com
Most women vote Democratic. And most still change their name when they marry. And that’s where the GOP sees an Achilles’ heel.

Most women vote Democratic. And most still change their name when they marry. And that’s where the GOP sees an Achilles’ heel.

September 19, 2024

Republicans don’t want women to vote. They now think they may have a strategy that could prevent them from doing so. House Speaker Mike Johnson and former President Donald Trump were pushing the [Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act], or SAVE Act, demanding it be part of must-pass legislation to fund the federal government for another year (the funding runs out at the end of this month, and then the shutdown begins).

It died in the House Wednesday night, but, like a bad penny, you can bet it’ll return.

-–

Edit

I fixed a typo in the text.

  • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    45·
    2 months ago

    Not to be too much of a lib, but this is why I push back on the “if voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.”

    Because they’re making it illegal.

    • regul [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      38·
      2 months ago

      Here’s what voting changes: who gets to control the graft machine.

      You can’t give your buddy lucrative no-bid contracts if you don’t control the right levers.

      They’re fighting very hard to keep themselves in their cushy jobs where nothing is expected of them.

    • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      But watch as one side pushes the agenda and the other side allows them to do it in the name of “compromise.” This is why voting changes nothing. You can vote for the people doing the bad thing or you can vote for the people shaking their hand while they do it. There is no difference.

  • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    38·
    2 months ago

    this is a hack bit, but I love American law acronyms, because they are so wildly against the title.

    like they could draft legislation called the Save Our Schools Act (SOS) and the executive summary would be about how the legislation turns every school in America into an artillery free fire zone and authorizes the military to drone strike every teacher in the US .

  • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    33·
    2 months ago

    I HATE CONGRESSIONAL ACRONYMS SO MUCH

    HERES THE NEW FEDERAL BORDER AERIAL SURVEILLANCE TO ASSIST RECONNAISSANCE DRONES ACT

    EVERYBODY CLAP FOR THE FEDERAL BASTARDS ACT

    open-biden

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      37·
      2 months ago

      I can imagine a future comment in r/politics…

      “Look, InevitableSwing - your negative comments aren’t helping at all, okay? In 2021-22 the dems had unified control and they did in 2025-26 too. Yeah, we heard you. But they didn’t ‘do nothing’ as you suggest. They did a highly impressive amount of work. Yes, they weren’t able to pass federal election laws. They can’t do everything. And now in 2029 we have President Barron because the conservative justices lowered the minimum age to be president. As for packing the court - that wasn’t practicable. We have President Barron and we just have to deal with that.”

      “And stop saying ‘Voting doesn’t matter.’ The GOP passed their SAVE Act. This is not a time to quit. Millions of woman can’t vote in the 2030 midterms. We have to work around because it’s the most important election of our lifetime…”

      I can’t reply because I was banned for the 27th time.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      I think when I was a boy in the 1970s that was already dated and it had a old-timey vibe. I couldn’t have imagined somebody like Steve McQueen using it. But James Cagney in a black and white movie - sure.

      -–

      Ninja edit

      Maybe the writer doesn’t realize how dated it is because one of his parents has a fondness for it. Or maybe it’s a regional thing.