The SAVE Act: A Voter Suppression Tactic Disguised as Election Integrity

Photo from Unsplash

Under the guise of “election integrity,” new legislation threatens to create unnecessary barriers to voting. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX-21) introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, H.R. 22 in early January, with a vote expected in the coming weeks. This legislation is yet another attempt to suppress the votes of marginalized communities by imposing burdensome documentation requirements for voter registration. It is important to recognize this bill as a direct attack on the democratic process and the fundamental right of all Americans to participate, especially communities of color.  

The SAVE Act seeks to amend the National Voter Registration Act by requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections. While this may appear to be a reasonable safeguard, in practice, it creates disproportionate barriers for historically disenfranchised communities. Many U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, low-income individuals, and women, do not possess the required documentation and face significant challenges in obtaining it. Studies have shown that approximately 11% of Americans of color lack ready access to citizenship documents, compared to about 8% of white Americans. Additionally, research has found that nearly 9% of voting-age African Americans lack access to birth certificates and passports, compared to 5.5% of white Americans. Women, especially those who have changed their names due to marriage or divorce, often encounter bureaucratic hurdles when updating identification documents, making the registration process even more difficult. 

This legislation is part of a broader strategy that exploits fear and misinformation to justify restrictive voting laws. Despite repeated studies debunking the myth of widespread non-citizen voting, supporters of the SAVE Act continue to push false claims to justify disenfranchising millions of Americans. The consequences of similar laws in states like Kansas demonstrate the harm that would be replicated nationwide. When Kansas implemented a proof-of-citizenship requirement, more than 31,000 otherwise eligible voters were blocked from registering, with the burden falling disproportionately on people of color and the elderly. If enacted at the federal level, the SAVE Act could prevent millions of eligible voters from participating in elections, reinforcing structural inequalities in political representation.  

Beyond the immediate threat to voter access, the SAVE Act is a dangerous step toward more aggressive voter suppression efforts. The bill would enable large-scale “voter purges,” removing lawfully registered citizens from voter rolls without safeguards or notification. Recent voter purges in states like Alabama have already demonstrated how such tactics disproportionately target naturalized citizens and communities of color. Additionally, the bill’s requirement for proof of citizenship every time an individual registers to vote would make it significantly harder for voter registration drives to reach underrepresented communities. 

Rather than enacting legislation that makes it harder to vote, Congress should be working to expand access to the ballot and protect voting rights. Key legislative measures, such as the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, offer real solutions to reinforcing democracy and ensuring that all Americans have a voice in the political process. Instead of perpetuating baseless claims of voter fraud, lawmakers should be focused on addressing real barriers that prevent eligible voters from casting their ballots, including voter intimidation, polling place closures, and gerrymandering.

The SAVE Act is not about election security; it is about restricting access to the ballot to maintain political power. By imposing unnecessary documentation requirements, it erects barriers that disproportionately affect communities that have historically been excluded from full democratic participation. The right to vote is fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Pete Hegseth Confirmed as Secretary of Defense Despite Troubling Allegations

Photo from Unsplash

Pete Hegseth’s confirmation as the United States Secretary of Defense represents a significant and deeply troubling moment for women’s rights, government accountability, and public service integrity. Despite widespread criticism over his history of alleged violence against women, inflammatory rhetoric, and divisive behavior, Hegseth was confirmed after a 50-50 Senate vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the deciding vote. 

Hegseth’s contentious record has been well documented. His ex-wife accused him of domestic violence in 2020, allegations that resurfaced during his confirmation hearings. Hegseth’s ex-wife’s sister alleged that her sister “feared for her personal safety” during her marriage and that she had a plan about “texting me a safe word/code word”. Hegseth and other Republican lawmakers denied the claims as “politically motivated attacks.” Yet the failure to seriously investigate these allegations perpetuates a dangerous norm: that men accused of violence against women can ascend to positions of immense power with little accountability. This act sends a chilling message to survivors of domestic violence about the value the GOP places on their voices and experiences.

In 2017, Pete Hegseth paid a $50,000 settlement to a woman who accused him of sexual assault, claiming he blocked the door of a hotel room and confiscated her phone to prevent her from leaving. During his confirmation hearing, Hegseth refused to address questions about the incident, dismissing them as “anonymous smears,” despite the existence of a police report.

Concerns about Hegseth’s personal behavior were further amplified by an FBI briefing, which raised questions about Hegseth’s professional conduct and ability, according to the report he made derogatory comments about women and minorities in service. This is particularly troubling in light of ongoing efforts to address systemic sexism and harassment within the military

Further concerns about Pete Hegseth’s drinking were exposed by recent allegations of alcohol abuse and misconduct reported by NPR. The report detailed incidents in which Hegseth’s excessive drinking allegedly led to inappropriate behavior, including instances of verbal aggression and poor decision-making in both personal and professional settings. 

This behavior reflects a pattern of recklessness and irresponsibility that undermines his credibility as a leader of the Department of Defense. In an institution where sound judgment and discipline are paramount, any history of impaired decision-making due to alcohol use in the workplace raises serious concerns. The allegations also speak to broader issues of accountability, as Hegseth’s history of personal misconduct appears to have been overlooked in favor of advancing his nomination. This willingness to dismiss such serious claims reflects a troubling double standard when it comes to holding powerful individuals accountable for their behavior.

Hegseth’s confirmation also raises broader questions about accountability in governance. What does it mean for our democracy when allegations of violence against women are brushed aside? How can we expect institutions to serve all Americans equitably when their leaders embody and reinforce systems of power that perpetuate inequality? In light of Pete Hegseth’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense, it is important to recognize the gravity of the allegations and controversies surrounding him. These include accusations of sexual assault, aggressive behavior towards his ex-wife, excessive drinking, financial mismanagement, and the endorsement of extremist ideologies.

Senate Hearing Revisits the Misleading and Dangerous ‘Born-Alive’ Bill

Photo from Unsplash

On January 22, 2025, the Senate revisited the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” introduced by Senators Roger Marshall and James Lankford (R-OK), during a contentious hearing. This legislation, which mirrors similar efforts in the House, seeks to reinforce protections for infants after “attempted abortions.” However, the bill has drawn criticism for being redundant, medically unnecessary, and rooted in disinformation, since infanticide is already illegal in every state. 

The 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act already ensures legal protections for any child born alive in the United States. Consequently, the proposed bill does not introduce new safeguards but instead amplifies misleading rhetoric surrounding abortion procedures later in pregnancy. This bill perpetuates false narratives that these procedures are frequent and unregulated, while also targeting and intimidating medical professionals. 

Leading medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), strongly oppose the legislation. During the preemptive hearing with Democratic Senators on January 21st, they explained that this legislation is “another cruel and misguided attempt to interfere with evidence-based medical decision-making between patients and their physicians.” Such bills exploit complex and tragic situations for political gain rather than addressing genuine healthcare concerns.

The bill’s latest iteration mandates rigid actions for healthcare providers under the threat of criminal and civil penalties. These provisions compromise medical training and clinical judgment and deter professionals from providing comprehensive care, particularly in rare and devastating cases involving non-viable pregnancies. 

The broader context of reproductive health in the United States highlights the stakes of this debate. As of early 2025, 19 states ban abortion at or before 18 weeks, and 12 states enforce total bans, including restrictions on lifesaving care for pregnancy complications. These draconian measures do not prioritize expanding healthcare or investing in medical research, rather they aim to provide punitive measures for women and physicians who seek medical care. 

Ultimately, the “Born-Alive” bill distracts from pressing healthcare needs and undermines public trust in medical professionals. These representatives must instead focus on policies that promote genuine healthcare improvements rather than advancing an extreme ideological agenda out of step with the majority of Americans.

Trump Immediately Attacks the LGBTQ Community in First Set of Executive Actions

Photo by Unsplash

On January 20th, 2025, a new executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” was issued marking a significant shift in federal policy on sex and gender. 

The order, presented as a measure to protect women’s rights, redefines sex as a biological characteristic determined at conception. It states, “‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. ‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.” This explicitly rejects the concept of gender identity and establishes a framework that federal agencies must adopt. 

The executive order mandates that all government-issued identification documents, such as passports, government IDs, and employment records, reflect biological sex. It also prohibits using federal funds to support initiatives promoting “gender ideology,” extending this restriction to grants and federally funded programs. Thus, federal systems effectively do not recognize transgender and nonbinary people. Furthermore, it prohibits using federal funds to support programs that serve LGBTQ+ communities.

A particularly harmful aspect of the order is its directive to enforce sex-based distinctions in spaces such as domestic violence shelters, prisons, and restrooms. These policies exclude transgender individuals from accessing spaces that align with their gender identity, exposing them to increased risks of violence, harassment, and discrimination. For example, transgender women placed in men’s prisons face disproportionately high rates of assault, a reality the order ignores in its claim to protect “safety and dignity.”

Furthermore, the order challenges interpretations of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). This established that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This decision extended workplace protections to LGBTQ+ individuals. However, the recent executive order seeks to roll back these protections. If the policies stemming from this order lead to actions that deny equal treatment to transgender or nonbinary individuals, for example, in workplaces, federal programs, or facilities, it could open the door to legal challenges arguing that the order violates the protections established under Bostock

This executive order is a direct attack on LGBTQ+ rights, particularly targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals by erasing gender identity from federal policies and programs. It undermines protections, fosters discrimination, and creates real dangers in spaces like shelters and prisons. This executive order is not about protecting women, it’s about further marginalizing transgender and nonbinary individuals under the guise of defending women’s rights. True gender equity includes all people. 

Here is a list of the guidance documents that were deemed “inconsistent” with the new gender ideology order:

  1. Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda  
    1. Executive Order 13988 (Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation).  
    2. Executive Order 14004 (Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform).  
    3. Executive Order 14020 (Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council).  
    4. Executive Order 14021 (Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity).  
    5. Executive Order 14075 (Advancing Equality for LGBTQI+ Individuals).
  2. Guidance and Toolkits from the Department of Education
    1. “2024 Title IX Regulations: Pointers for Implementation.”  (LINK)
    2. “U.S. Department of Education Toolkit: Creating Inclusive and Nondiscriminatory School Environments for LGBTQI+ Students.”  (LINK)
    3. “Supporting LGBTQI+ Youth and Families in School” (English and Spanish versions).  (LINK)
    4. “Supporting Intersex Students: A Resource for Students, Families, and Educators.”  (LINK)
    5. “Supporting Transgender Youth in School.”  (LINK)
    6. “Confronting Anti-LGBTQI+ Harassment in Schools: A Resource for Students and Families.”  (LINK)
    7. “Letter to Educators on Title IX’s 49th Anniversary.”  (LINK)
    8. “Back-to-School Message for Transgender Students from the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, and HHS.”(LINK)
  3. Justice Department Guidance
    1. Attorney General Memorandum (March 26, 2021) on Bostock v. Clayton County and Title IX applications. (LINK)
  4. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
    1. “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” (April 29, 2024). (LINK)
  5. Other Federal Guidance and Resources 
    1. “The White House Toolkit on Transgender Equality.”  (LINK)
    2. HUD’s Final Rule: “Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual’s Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs” (2016).  (LINK)
    3. Bureau of Prisons’ policies regarding gender-affirming medical care for incarcerated individuals.  (LINK)
    4. Various grant conditions tied to gender identity inclusion in federally funded programs.

The Hidden Anti-Abortion Agenda of H.Res.7

Photo on Unsplash

On January 3rd, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-5) introduced House Resolution 7 in the 119th Congress, titled “Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages.” Despite appearing to support women’s healthcare, the wording, particularly “life-affirming,” raises significant concerns. 

The phrase “life-affirming medical care” isn’t as neutral as it sounds. It’s a term often used by anti-abortion groups to promote policies that prioritize fetal rights over women’s bodily autonomy. While the resolution doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, the language implies further attacks on access to these essential services.

To understand what’s at stake, we need to place this resolution in America’s larger context of reproductive rights. Legislation such as H.Res.7 comes at a time when access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare is under relentless attack. Bills framed as supportive often carry hidden agendas. For example, the bill explicitly states that women’s healthcare should address the needs of men, families, and communities as they relate to women’s healthcare.” However, it does not clarify why or how these groups are connected to providing women’s health services, leaving this inclusion unexplained.

Furthermore, the resolution endorses Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers, a consortium of medical centers that promote “spiritual care” as a core component of its healthcare model and is rooted in ideologies that prioritize religious values. This raises concerns about the prioritization of religious and political agendas over evidence-based medical care. These clinics services neglect to include anything relating to abortion care or contraception; alternatively they explain that abortion is not women’s healthcare, because of the damage it causes to women’s physical and emotional health and the destruction of unborn life.” This type of rhetoric is incredibly dangerous and amplifies misinformation regarding essential reproductive healthcare. 

What’s more, restrictions on reproductive health disproportionately harm marginalized communities, including low-income women, women of color, and those living in rural areas who already face systemic barriers to healthcare. For instance, Black and Indigenous women in the US experience maternal mortality rates 2 to 3 times higher than their white counterparts. Additionally, states with restrictive abortion policies often have higher rates of maternal and infant mortality, exacerbating existing health disparities. The promotion of Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers, also known as fake clinics, puts these communities at an even higher risk as they may not be able to access to care they need.

Reproductive justice, a term coined by women of color, goes beyond abortion. It’s about the right to have children, the right not to have children, and the right to parent in safe and supportive environments. This resolution is falling short of addressing these needs, instead favoring a narrow, ideologically driven view of women’s healthcare.

While it may not have an immediate legislative impact, the introduction of this bill reflects a broader strategy to normalize restrictive policies and pave the way for more aggressive assaults on women’s healthcare and rights. This resolution must be understood, not as a harmless statement, but as part of a larger push to control women’s bodies and diminish their ability to make personal healthcare decisions.

>

Support eh ERA banner