this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
1135 points (98.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

11031 readers
1935 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The SAVE Act passed the House on Feb. 11, 2026 by a vote of 218-213 and is now in the Senate awaiting a vote. Voting is expected to take place next week, according to Thune. If and when it passes the Senate, it will go to the president for a final signature.

Will SAVE Act Prevent Married Women from Registering to Vote?

By Hadleigh Zinsner

Posted on February 28, 2025

Q: Is it true that under the SAVE Act married women will not be able to register to vote if their married name doesn’t match their birth certificate?

A: The proposed SAVE Act instructs states to establish a process for people whose legal name doesn’t match their birth certificate to provide additional documents. But voting rights advocates say that married women and others who have changed their names may face difficulty when registering because of the ambiguity in the bill over what documents may be accepted.

FULL ANSWER

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 160 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Easy solution, just don't marry anyone with a different last name.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 234 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's how MAGA does marriage, usually

[–] X@piefed.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Might go a long way in explaining those long jaws they frequently have

[Sweet Home Alabama intensifies]

[–] socsa@piefed.social 19 points 1 week ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 108 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (16 children)

They'll go after each demographic whose voting habits favour democrats: Immigrants, women, educated, non-christian, poor, lbgtq+, young, non-white. Whichever ones you belong to, makes you a potential target of voter disenfranchisement. At he same time making it easier for: old, male, white, Christian, wealthy, uneducated, straight, multi-generational American.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago

Wait til you hear why they created a “war” on “drugs”!

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

If convicted felons can be president, they should be allowed to vote too.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] leopardpuncher@feddit.dk 65 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Seems to me that if your birth name and married name match, this will disproportionately favor people who marry their siblings or other relatives. I wonder what political leaning that particular segment has 🤔

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 39 points 1 week ago (2 children)

while i get the joke, i just want to make sure it's clear to anyone coming across this understnds that women who elect to change their name in the merital tradition of erasure are more likely to be conservative, and the women who have the documents to prove their identity (like a passport) are more likely to be progressive.

all that said, the focus on how this will impact women, specifically, is frustrating because it's ignoring the biggest groups of people who will be impacted: immigrants and working poor people. we shouldn't tolerate the disenfranchisement of ~30% of women, so we are clear, but we are positioned to disenfranchise ~80% of immigrants and working poor and no one is talking about it. these are people who are less likely to have ANY of the acceptable documents proposed in the SAVE act.

for context, people experiencing poverty are far less likely to be born in a hospital and have a birth certificate, usually depending on a baptism certificate to establish their government name. meanwhile, immigrants may have a passport, but if it's expired that's unacceptable, and a lot of the nations around the world that issued the birth certificates being required by this law in place of a passport can no longer certify birth certificates simply because they aren't existing anymore. i have multiple friends who can't get their birth certificates right now because that would put them at risk of government retribution because they are asylum seekers. for example, my siberian neighbor isn't going to be getting in touch with the Russian government any time soon.

so in conclusion. the aim is to disenfranchise women and minorities. the majority of the women disenfranchised will be conservative. however, the majority of people disenfranchised will be progressive.

and that's no accident.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago (4 children)

20-30% of women keep their maiden name after marriage.

Liberal women are roughly twice as likely as conservative women to keep their maiden name.

So yeah, conservative women screwing themselves and also handing a minor edge to liberal women.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ReluctantlyZen@ani.social 51 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Why on earth is a birth certificate used at all for identification?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago (11 children)

It's proof of citizenship. But also, here it's a convenient and plausibly deniable way to disenfranchise people who vote differently than them.

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah I'm guessing even most MAGA voters don't have a birth certificate handy, and certainly don't have passports. This just disenfranchises MOST Americans.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

The enforcement will be extremely selective. We’re talking about Republicans here. They’re not subtle about ignoring the constitution.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is from USA Today. This is where political journalism is:

Will the SAVE America Act pass the Senate? Odds, predictions

The odds of the SAVE America Act passing the Senate and signed into law in 2026 are 12% according to the Polymarket betting odds, and the Kalshi market odds show 13.9% confidence that it will become law.

[–] sparkles@piefed.zip 70 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Betting on me losing my rights is wild.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

And yet it doesn’t even make the top ten fucked up shit for today.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 27 points 1 week ago (7 children)

TBF the betting platforms had higher accuracy than aggregate polls in 2024.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 12 points 1 week ago (17 children)

Betting platforms aggregate the beliefs of the people betting on them, but this means that biases of that group affect the odds.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Does that mean Alabama women are safe?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Do the Republicans really think they are going to benefit from a requirement that disenfranchises people who don't have proof of citizenship like:

-Women who got married and took their husbands last name
-People who keep getting divorced over and over again
-People who have never travelled outside the US

Bear in mind that the people who are basically guaranteed to have their documents in order are:

-Recently naturalized citizens
-People who travel a lot
-Unmarried women
-People who graduated college

So your local lesbian coven of naturalized middle aged Latinas. They are going to have zero problem voting. Joe Bob the cousin fucker from Alabama who has never gotten more than 20 miles from his trailer park and doesn't believe in "the gummet", and hasn't had a job that didn't pay cash in his whole life? Yeah, that fucker doesn't have a passport.

But hey, at least they are going to stop all the undocumented immigrants who already weren't allowed to register to vote in the first place.

This is going to be like how they attacked absentee voting without realizing that the majority of absentees were retirees and the military.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 29 points 1 week ago

Do the Republicans really think

Not usually

[–] spencerwi@feddit.org 26 points 1 week ago (4 children)

See, the thing Jim Crow and its "literacy tests" taught us is that you just need a rule that you can enforce on the wrong people, and then you just choose not to enforce it when it's convenient.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 16 points 1 week ago

So your local lesbian coven of naturalized middle aged Latinas.

Just want to emphasize this hilarious line for anyone who doesn’t feel like reading the entire post. Please carry on.

[–] sparkles@piefed.zip 36 points 1 week ago

My circles have been discussing this one for a while. Not a coincidence that they are making it more difficult to get a passport.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Looking forward to being a future target for never having married and/or taken a man’s name next!

None of us are safe until all of us are safe.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ksin@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Not having any form of national ID really does lead to some goofy shit when you need to positivly identify people.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] robocall@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I guess all those blue haired feminists that refused to get married or change their last names still get to vote

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lonefighter@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If your name doesn't match what's on your birth certificate, look into whether your state allows you to change your birth certificate and do it before it's too late. My name is not my birth name or my married name, I had it legally changed. I got tired of hauling around my birth certificate, marriage certificate, divorce paperwork, and legal name change to show the paper trail that I both was who I was and was no longer legally married. Turns out in my state I just had to send in a notarized form, copies of my paperwork and pay small fee and I got my birth certificate updated to my current name. Now I can "prove" who I am by just showing my birth certificate and ignore the fact that I was married and changed my name. It also made updating my passport easier. Granted, I am not trans, but I did it last year and they had the option to change gender on the form.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 19 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It's not like it's impossible for such people to vote, but getting your documents in order costs money.
Same for voting on a weekday, voting offices being only in affluent neighbourhoods, voting demanding an ID .....

No money, no democracy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 week ago

Won’t matter when he cancels elections cause we are in multiple wars.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

Don't worry, they'll only enforce this with Democratic voters

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

So hear me out. Conservatives are more likely to take someone's last name than a liberal couple right? Doesn't this disproportionately disenfranchise Republican women? Could this potentially actually harm the Republican vote?

[–] femtek@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago

A lot of states have been banning name changes for trans people, I think this was a dumb attack on trans people.

[–] nocturne@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When my wife and I married she only took my last name because her father abandoned her when she was 6 months old, and she wanted to erase that from her identity.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 17 points 1 week ago

Wait, this is even dumber then it looks like. Under this crap unmarried women will be unaffected but the more traditional marriage types will be hooped. So this will remove the "trad" wife votes but not touch the ladies in say the local polycule. Gee I wonder if all the single/divorced women will be more or less likely to vote for the red party?

[–] Cantaloupe877@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Every day that passes, I hate these people more and more.

[–] highjayhawk@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

MAGA women usually are still using their first husbands last name so it’ll suck for them too

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] needanke@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are also going after Mail-In voting already:

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Americans can’t sue the U.S. Postal Service, even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-postal-service-missing-mail-7ce97a5b7d56373cdeaa6ecc9a9132f5

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] flandish@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

why would a married name match a birth certificate name? or are they saying they only marry relatives? do women change birth certs when married? I am not a woman.

but funny story i adoped my stepson after his mom died. he was 14 or so. he was issued a new birth certificate and the “mother” area is … blank.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago

"Don't get married, women. Or you no longer have the right to vote!" -- MAGA, apparently

[–] OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I'm worried that this is a distraction to introduce a similar, but somehow less widespread bill. Like "oh boy, yeah this would disallow more women than intended to vote. Here's the new bill that only disallows people with unmatching first names to avoid voter fraud (or whatever)." ...And thus trans people can't vote.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] nightlily@leminal.space 13 points 1 week ago

Cis women, trans people, and abuse victims. Their favourite targets.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

I’d be willing to bet this will disenfranchise more republican women than democrat women. Democrats are way more likely to have a passport

load more comments
view more: next ›