FAQs About the SAVE America Act and Its Impact on Voters

As the SAVE America Act moves through Congress and outside groups mobilize on both sides, confusion about what the bill would actually require has fueled misinformation and political spin. If passed, the legislation would require Americans to show a passport or birth certificate to register to vote—adding a new layer of federal documentation requirements that could block millions of eligible voters. Supporters describe it as a simple measure; critics warn it would create sweeping new barriers at the registration stage.

More than 21 million Americans don’t have ready access to those documents. Married women who have changed their names could face mismatched records. And the bill rests on a premise that researchers have repeatedly debunked: widespread noncitizen voting.

To cut through the noise, Ms. has put together this guide to the SAVE America Act, answering common questions about what it would do and how it could affect your right to vote, including: Does a Real ID count? What if I can’t find my passport? And why are Trump and Republicans pushing so hard for this bill?

The Heritage Foundation’s Plan to Keep Women Uneducated, Pregnant and Subservient

Since Trump’s re-ascendance to the White House, the reactionary conservative movement has become the most aggressive and unfettered it has been in my lifetime. And they are getting very, very clear on what they think an acceptable life looks like for women:

—Settle for any man who decides he wants you.
—Don’t go to college.
—Marry early.
—Have as many babies as possible.
—Quit your job (or don’t pursue one in the first place) to stay home full time and depend financially on your husband.
—Shoulder the blame if you wind up married to a jerk.
—Wind up impoverished if you divorce.
—Face social condemnation if you fail to follow the tradwife script.
—Contraception should be illegal or at least hard to get; same for IVF and other fertility treatments.

This isn’t hyperbole. It’s a plan they wrote down and published: Last month, the Heritage Foundation published “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years.” Think of it as Project 2275, a detailed plan that is mostly about how America can spend the next two and a half centuries undoing the feminist progress we’ve made.

When Voting Gets Harder, Women Pay First: The Stakes of the SAVE Act

The U.S. House passed the so-called SAVE America Act 218-213, with lone Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas joining all House Republicans in voting yes for the Trump‑backed bill. The bill now heads to the Senate; it reportedly has “nearly unanimous” support among Senate Republicans on the merits, but there is no evidence of the minimum seven Democrat votes they would need to overcome the filibuster. (There is no specific date for a floor vote yet, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said the bill will get a vote and that he can move to it “as soon as he chooses.”)

Still, its renewed momentum makes one thing clear: The implications of the SAVE Act for women voters and women’s political representation are no longer hypothetical. They are immediate. 

A Feminist Historian’s Year-End Reading and Viewing Guide

As the year winds down, I find myself returning—as I always do—to the stories, performances and ideas that have shaped my teaching and thinking. Feminism’s past is never really past; it’s a living archive we carry with us, full of unresolved questions, missteps, breakthroughs and beautiful, complicated people. This year’s reading and viewing list reflects that sensibility.

Liberation forces its contemporary narrator—and its audience—to reckon with the impossible expectations we’ve placed on small groups of women in church basements.

Molly Jong-Fast’s memoir presses on the tender, maddening ties between feminist foremothers and the daughters who grew up in their shadow.

Sarah Weinman’s study of spousal rape laws exposes just how recently the law stopped treating wives’ bodies as open territory—while showing how fiercely survivors and advocates have had to push for change that should never have been controversial.

Actually It’s Good That Fewer High Schoolers Want to Get Married

High schoolers, and especially high school girls, are less likely than ever to say that they want to get married someday, according to new research from Pew Research Center. While boys have stayed fairly stable in how many of them say they want to marry, girls have gone from overwhelmingly wanting marriage to being even less likely than boys to want to wed.

Conservative groups and writers have met this new survey with some panic. If 12th graders don’t want to get married, I guess the logic goes, then they won’t get married, and America’s declining rates of marriage and childbearing will continue and will eventually destroy society. To them, this new survey indicates a broader social shift away from marriage and childbearing, which is bad, because in their view, the nuclear family is the good and necessary backbone of any moral and functional culture. 

But actually, it’s great that far fewer high school girls are even thinking about marriage.

The teenage girls who are thinking about their weekends instead of their weddings? They’re doing something right. 

Kim Davis Failed This Time, But Her Advocates Are Still American Power Players

The Supreme Court this week declined to revisit Kim Davis’ appeal that attempted to overturn its landmark precedent recognizing same-sex marriage as a legal right nationwide.

Davis may now fade into the distance—but how did the former Kentucky county clerk become the face of America’s anti-gay marriage movement?

In short, Davis had help from some of the biggest Christian legal groups and most influential figures in the U.S., who are still actively trying to roll back LGBTQ rights on home soil and—in many cases—internationally. Now more than ever, we need to remain vigilant about Davis and these groups and monitor their efforts.

Russia Was Once a Revolutionary Feminist Motherland

Russia’s hostility to feminism today stems not from its foreignness, but from memory. A century ago, it was Russian women who lit the first sparks of revolution. On International Women’s Day in 1917, factory workers filled the streets of Petrograd demanding bread, peace and equality—an uprising that toppled the Romanovs and pulled the world into modernity. Under the Bolsheviks, women won the right to vote, divorce became accessible and abortion was legalized. For a brief, radical moment, the Soviet experiment made women’s liberation a pillar of the state.

Julia Ioffe’s book, Motherland: A Feminist History of Modern Russia, from Revolution to Autocracy, reminds us that today’s Russia rejects feminism precisely because it once knew what it could do: ignite revolutions, upend hierarchies and reimagine power itself.

Would Charlie Kirk Be Mourned the Same if He Were Single and Childless?

After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, many mourners grieved the untimely death of a “father and husband.” Opinions of his rhetoric aside, the unintended implication is that he would be less worthy of being mourned if he were single and childless.

As a 47-year-old male who’s never been married and has little to no interest in dating, you’d better believe I’ve been asked questions like, “When are you gonna settle down?” and “why are you still single?” But this isn’t about me venting. It’s about what’s behind these questions: the core assumption that not having a partner is lacking.

Trump’s Pronatalist Agenda Weaponizes Motherhood to Push Women Out of Public Life

The Trump administration is using one of the oldest tools of patriarchy—promising rewards for compliance—through a wave of proposed pronatalist policies designed to push women into motherhood and encourage them to give birth to more children.

A recent report by the National Women’s Law Center warns that these proposals are not random: They stem from an “obscure, dangerous, and increasingly influential movement of ‘pronatalists’” that are now dictating the Trump administration’s family policy. 

According to NWLC, there are two major groups of pronatalists: Silicon Valley tech elites, such as Elon Musk, who claim that “high-IQ” people like themselves should be having more children; and traditional conservatives, who advocate for pushing women back into stay-at-home motherhood.

Tradwives and ‘The People That People Come Out Of’

For the first time in years, the number of U.S. mothers with young children in the workforce is shrinking—over 212,000 women left between January and June 2025 alone.

Childcare costs, in-office pressures, and a cultural nudge toward traditional gender roles are pushing moms out, while men in power nod along.

Meanwhile, the tradwife movement parades its perfect, baked-from-scratch, filtered-life versions of domesticity online, making the impossible look effortless.

It’s absurd. It’s dangerous. And it’s time we stop letting the economy treat raising kids as invisible labor.