I tell every teenager I meet, "don't change your name when you get married!" I am in the process of getting a real ID and one of the documents I have to have is one that proves my name change. Important documents get lost when you are evicted, or your house goes up in flames, or you are home is flooded, or....

You get my point...

I got engaged when I was finishing my PhD program, and several of my male professors encouraged me to keep my maiden name so my publications would follow me. I thanked them, but assured them I had no intention of changing my name.

Interestingly, when I was teaching a college class several years later, I mentioned that a female traditionally got her father's name at birth and her husband's name at marriage. One of my male students went ballistic and argued that the male name was essential. And yes, not long after he graduated, he ran for state representative as a Republican and won.

I toyed with changing my name but my heart, fortunately, was never really in it. In my divorce I specified that I got my name back but no other documents were ever formally changed.

and the OP is absolutely correct that you cannot get a certified copy of your birth certificate for free.

When I started working on the air, I had several reasons for keeping my name. I figured if I ever got high-profile jobs, it’d give my husband some privacy. He agreed, besides being steadily and enthusiastically supportive of my career. He even brought it up when we were first together - that it wouldn’t bother him at all. And almost 50 years later, it still hasn’t. He’s always been supportive of my work. I’m a lucky gal.

You and your husband are both lucky! Thanks for sharing this calimary.

It requires an official documentation of your name change -- so a Marriage Certificate or a legal name change document.

When I contacted my past state to get that, they wanted me to prove who I was by supplying, among other things, my Marriage Certificate.

and no longer have either marriage certificate or the divorce decrees. Luckily I live in a state that doesn't require that. At least until Congress demands it.

you might not get a chance to vote.

come into play when settling an estate when there are claims for benefits to be made (Social Security, life insurance, pension, etc.)
Source: I have been an executor three times.

So it might be worth gathering them now before they make that harder too.

But for middle class and poor, it is awful.

#RepublicansAreDestroyingAmerica

The thing is that if you don't know you need it, you may need it but not have time to get the documents you need.

I know that when I was acting as trustee for my parents estate, there were many documents I needed to get from various government record-keeping agencies. I was surprised, really. I had ample time, though. I also had the documents needed to prove who I was, so I could get the other documents. It was somewhat complicated at times, too.

Now, take the case of someone thinking their voter registration is in good order, only to find that it is actually not, and that they need marriage certificates and divorce documents. to straighten out a name that has been changed more than once. That can take weeks to deal with and a lot of mailing of documents around to places you used to live.

Not a simple thing. If I were an advice-giver, I'd advise everyone to make sure you have all the documents you might need at hand. Stuff happens, and you could need to produce them right away. Get them now, before they are needed. Store them safely.

((((SATAN??))))

(for those who remember the Church Lady on SNL)

But seriously, it's Uglicans. White, male, Uglicans.

...for a Real ID if the woman had changed her name when she married and the fact that men didn't have to do that because they don't change their name when they marry (in the vast majority of cases).

Anyone who needs to get a copy of their birth certificate pays, so it isn't an issue of it being a tax on women.

for the REAL ID as WELL if you have assumed husband's surname as your marital name.

Really, SickOfTheOnePercent?

...just stating what her complaint in her OP was, which is that it's unfair that women have to pay for a marriage certificate for a Real ID if they changed their name (and didn't already have a passport).

I saw one person say their birth certificate was free, which surprised me because I know I had to pay years ago to get a certified copy of mine, and I assume the cost has only risen since then.

They have to get a marriage license and birth certificate if they changed their name when they got married. Getting the marriage license costs money, men don't change their name so they don't have to pay that money.

Which was the complaint in applegrove's OP yesterday, i.e., that Real ID imposes a tax on women because they need both.

My point is that needing a birth certificate isn't a tax on women, because if a birth certificate is required for something, men have to pay it too (and I've never seen it be free, but maybe it differs state to state).

The only time a man needs a birth certificate is when applying for a first passport, and travel is not a basic citizenship right.

More than half of women now need one to vote. Voting is definitely a basic right of citizenship, and if this is to be required for voting, it should be free to those women.

To say nothing of the time women have to spend doing this while men don't.

And a lot of women won't or won't be able to. So their rights are being denied.

And in those places, if women are required to have a birth certificate to vote, aren't men required to have them too?

…as it’s pretty important. If there is place that requires women to have birth certificates to vote but doesn’t require it of men, that’s something that needs to be shouted loudly from every rooftop.

…no one seems to be able to provide the name of any state that requires women to provide a birth certificate in order to vote, but don’t require men to do the same .

…has it been enacted and signed into law? Last I heard, it’s sitting with the Senate.

And it requires birth certificates or passports from men and women.

If you’re talking about the inequity of marriage certificates, that’s very different than birth certificates. But your OP was about birth certificates.

If they aren't making strides to acquire documentation and change their registration now, they may well not have the opportunity. Not to mention the funds necessary to do so.

…do you believe will vote for the SAVE Act in order for it to get to Trump’s desk for signature?

Because that’s the only way it can happen.

And by doing so, time it around absences, illness, even holidays. We have seen this happen on other bills--even where DEMS opposed. I don't know why you don't seem to care about women (even MAGA women) being so blatantly disenfranchised, but there is a good chance this will occur, and thus the reason for us speaking to it here! Most people here, and certainly most on this thread, do care.

…but you keep going back to the birth certificate issue being exclusively about women, and it’s not.

If your complaint is about marriage certificates in order to vote, (due to name changes) then yeah, that’s something that is potentially an additional cost, which is a problem.

But any birth certificate requirements would apply to men and women.

And yes, I can presuppose you will point to the exceedingly rare men who change their name in a same-sex marriage or some other zebra example--maybe witness protection? Disingenuous at best.

I'm disgusted. Done.

...anyone - men or women - who don't have a passport or Real ID would have to show a birth certificate to prove citizenship. That's all the birth certificate does.

Anyone whose current legal name doesn't match the birth certificate - and 99.999% of the time that will be women - would have to also provide a legal document showing that the birth name was legally changed, (marriage certificate, court order, etc.) and that the person in front of the registrar is the citizen denoted on the birth certificate and can register to vote.

The inequity comes in due to the second document proving name change, not the birth certificate, which would be required for everyone (which is also wrong, but that's a different discussion).

… with the help of Mitch McConnell, has created a SCOTUS that will support anything they bring it that strikes down our freedoms.

There is no “only way it can happen” anymore. Trump tweets Exec. Orders at 2 a.m. and signs them at 2 p.m. His attitude is “stop me if you can” and no one does.

Believe us when we tell you this new and “impossible” plan is a poll-tax on women almost exclusively, and will become a major stumbling block to voting for all the reasons already given here. Don’t perseverate on just one brick (birth certs) in the roadblock — there are many pieces of paper to gather, and hope you haven’t lost in your last big move.

MAGAGOP wants to disenfranchise as much of the population as possible, and reduce competition for white men’s rightful place. Women are 52%. That’s a big chunk of the population all at once, of every race.

SCOTUS finally got Dobbs up before it, which in case you didn’t notice, impacts women almost exclusively. It’s very hard to compete with men on anything like an equal footing when you have a 50/50 or merely random chance of getting pregnant every month. (Please do read Dobbs if you haven’t. It’s not that long, and comments by Thomas and Alito lay out future plans for “revisiting” the rights to contraception, and to marriage both interracial and gay)

This is about the third time I’ve tried to write out a version of this — yesterday our house connection to the internet kept dropping randomly. Good old Spectrum. Hubby works from home, so it’s not just a minor irritation for me. In any case, this morning I saw this thread again and realized I still wanted to say it. Hope it was worth it. Aaaaand Post.

The SAVE Act doesn’t require birth certificates for men and women?

...and there is nothing in the documentation requirements that call out men or women when it discusses the need for a birth certificate (under (5) below).

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr22/text

election day so women are caught short. Thinking women need to prepare as if it has already passed because if they don't, they will likely be disenfranchised.

When they pass it, it will be federal law.

to cure the issue--which will be time-consuming (under the best of circumstances, which my experience shows since I acquired a valid BC in the past) and, as I pointed out, costly

Because one guy loves his kick-ass file system, and the other isn't real sure what we are talking about.

I despair.

Gungeon dwellers?

…and you seem to be conflating a birth certificate requirement that would be imposed on men and women with a marriage certificate requirement that would overwhelmingly apply only to women.

I provided the text of the bill, and it clear that it doesn’t single out women regarding birth certificates.

But you do you 😊

Whereas most men have not changed their names and can use a more recent form of identification. So they will not need to provide either document.

Sometimes things are not explicitly written in the law. Especially when they're trying to disenfranchise people.

The birth certificate requirement is based on the need to prove citizenship - it has zero to do with name changes.

Susie Johnson comes in to register to vote and she has to prove citizenship
She provides her driver's license that (non-Real ID) that says Susie Johnson and the picture shows that it's obviously her
She provides her birth certificate that says Susie Smith
Registrar says the names don't match - do you have a legal document that shows you changed your name from Smith to Johnson?
Susie provides a marriage certificate

I agree 100% that the cost of the marriage certificate (if she had to pay for it) is a tax on women, but I don't agree that the birth certificate is, because ANYONE registering to vote, man or woman, would have to provide their birth certificate if they don't have a passport or Real ID.

They will never get 7 Democratic Senators vote for it. It was introduced in last Congress and died without a vote. The same thing will happen this time. It was never even assigned to a committee.

And any woman for whom it would be an issue would be foolish to not act as if it will pass. Just the threat of it imposes the cost.

Note, it will only impact already registered voters if the move, change party registration or change their name. The impact would only happen if their registration needs to change.

Based on the proposed legislation, the SAVE Act would not require most already-registered voters to prove citizenship
https://pahouse.com/FrielOtten/EmailArchive/?id=138122
The SAVE Act would require you to show proof of citizenship matching your current legal name in order to register to vote or to update your voter registration following a move, name change, or change in party registration.

Do you want to give republicans that edge?

Try that sentence again while substituting the word “women” with “African Americans”, “immigrants”, “people with disabilities”, heck even “children”. You don’t know what its impact, if any, will be because proposed legislation does not always retain its shape when passed. Just say your downplaying it because you don’t think it’s a big deal.

They just "went nuclear" over confirmation of Trump appointees. Now Trump’s corrupt incompetent appointees are flying through the Senate like shit through a goose.

They could do it for something else, but I don't know what that would be at this point.

And people are ignoring that even if the SAVE act were passed, it would not impact the vast majority of women right away. It only requires proof of citizenship to register to vote or update your registration. So if you're already registered, and haven't moved and don't change your party of registration, it will not impact you until you move or change parties.

Based on the proposed legislation, the SAVE Act would not require most already-registered voters to prove citizenship

https://pahouse.com/FrielOtten/EmailArchive/?id=138122
The SAVE Act would require you to show proof of citizenship matching your current legal name in order to register to vote or to update your voter registration following a move, name change, or change in party registration.

Finally, there is no evidence that the SAVE act would definitively help Republicans. Evidence suggests that it could become harder to prove citizenship for voting in "red" states compared to "blue" states

The SAVE Act is awful and should never pass and I'm confident it won't.

No more sure than people were sure no Democratic House members would vote to honor Charlie Kirk. No more sure than people are sure legal precedent means anything anymore. I could go on.

And SAVE would disproportionately disenfranchise women. Women are more likely to vote for Democrats.

You're comfortable with giving up those votes?

Your examples are ridiculous because I was sure that every single one of those things WOULD happen. On the other hand, there are tons of things people here were sure were going to happen over the past 9 months, that I said at the time would NOT happen and I was right. I didn't say the the SAVE Act would never pass, I just said that Republicans will NOT get rid of the filibuster just to pass it and they won't.

You apparently aren't aware of this:

being disenfranchised. Because a think tank says only a few more Democrats than Republicans would have their right to vote taken from them.

Would you feel the same if it was your right to vote that was taken away?

This is disgusting. I'm done here.

I've repeated multiple times that the SAVE Act is terrible and I'm not OK with anyone being disenfranchised. How you got the idea that I'm OK with it from what I posted, I'll never know but I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I'm offended that you're accusing me of saying things that are opposite of the actual points I was making. But since you choose to misrepresent everything I say, it makes no sense to try to continue since you won't respond to my actual points anyway.

More along the lines that the GOP knows their women voters are very important to their elections.

Most of the conservative MAGA-type women I know from my home state of Indiana are the type who like complain and moan, but don't take action (unless it's something like a rally where all they have to do is show up.) Tedious things, like getting a copy of your marriage license, fall into the category of "too hard". Many won't bother with it, booooring.

So, bottom line, IF this bill were to pass (which I don't think it will), it's going to hurt GOP women just as much.

Dems voting to honor Charlie Kirk was a (stupid) symbolic gesture with little long-term impact. That won't be the same for the SAVE Act. No Democrat in Congress will vote for that becaust that would have a long-term impact, on them.

There were 4 Democrats out of over 210 who voted for it in the House. They should be condemned for that, but even if those 4 voted no, it still would have passed.

To pass the Senate, it needs 7 Democrats out of 47. That ain't going to happen. Most Democratic Senators have already publicly stated they will never vote for it.

Yes, everything possible and necessary MUST be done to make sure it never passes. In the meantime, many on the left ignore this:

I assumed it would lean this way, but had no idea that it was such a huge difference, with conservative women being twice as likely to take their husband's name as liberal women.

Most men do not legally change the name on their birth certificate.
Now, the SAVE act is still languishing, however, there are states with legislatures that are invested in limiting the suffrage, so if there is precedent that is legally acceptable, they will do what they can to ensure only the "Right" people will remain the majority of voters.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-bills-would-require-passport-or-birth-certificate-register-vote

On edit - the promoters of such bills piously claim this isn't targeted at women per say, it's targeted at anyone who has changed their name or uses a legal name other that the one they had at birth... (Like Trans folk, or immigrants who want to pass as more Americanized).
And most states where a law like this would've pass would ensure they challenge those "anyones" they don't want voting at the polls to ensure they won't have an opportunity to cast a ballot until well after the election.

It's a bit fallacious argument to suggest it would be applied equally to men and women in a district; rather, it would be applied politically against minorities, especially in minority/majority districts, to water down opposition votes.

on women because women are the ones that normally change their name. Let's call it disparate impact if that makes more sense.

…I agree 100%. I don’t agree on birth certificates, because if required, they will be required for men and women.

In any case, the cost is only one barrier.

Look at the big picture. A lot of women - especially older women - changed their name when they got married. Decades later they may not have the documentation needed to prove a match with their birth names.

THEY NEVER THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE TO.

They changed their names in accordance with societal and legal expectations of the time. Now, suddenly and unexpectedly, the government is creating this barrier for no good reason except political propaganda.

It will be too difficult for many women to obtain the documentation. They simply won't vote.

And that's exactly what Project 25 and a lot of Republicans say they want. No women voting.

I'm not questioning that the need provide proof of name change has more of a negative effect on women, a tax if you will.

But the OP is talking about the need for a birth certificate to vote is a tax on women, and I don't see how that's the case. In the cases where a birth certificate will be needed, it will be needed by both men and women (don't have a Real ID, passport, etc.) The birth certificate proves citizenship, which if needed, would affect all voters who were registering, not just women.

A legal name change, which will overwhelmingly affect women, triggers the need for additional documentation, which is where the "tax on women" comes in.

and men don't

But that's not the case.

that could make it onerous for everybody. Still slightly worse for women because if you already have a passport the man doesn't also need a birth certificate. But lets agree that it's all ridiculous and must be stopped.

more than a decade ago.

But the cost is more than your estimate - since you not only have to prove your current name, you have to prove every change between birth and the present. So multiply that cost by every time you've changed your name.

Birth, first marriage (kept name at divorce), second marriage, etc. Just that short change requires 3 formal documents to document the chain of names from birth to present.

It's supposed to be illegal

For the exact reason you're stating.

They are planning to exclude women whose married name does not match their (maiden) registration name. The only way to get this corrected is with a marriage and birth certificate.

...to pass changes to their voter ID laws, but I haven't dug into the details of what they're trying to do.

It seems that you require more explanation then can be given here.

…to prove their point, not me.

for a passport and it was $30 or more in Kansas.

I made that decision at 15 and stood by it ever since.

No regrets!

... a photocopy made from microfilm with an embossed county seal, are not accepted for many purposes these days. One is forced to get the VitalCheck version.

This was required of me the last time I got fingerprinted for a school job.

Based on what i read at the time i avoided 'vitalcheck' and went directly to the state 'vital records' or 'department of health' or whatever they called their agency. For some states it might be the exclusive online vendor but it seems I was able to download forms from state websites and mail in applications if the state didn't provide its own online portal. There were still costs but not as much as vitalcheck.

Out of young romance if nothing else. Family pressure figures into it. Religion, for sure.

But now these 🤬🤬🤬 overlords are putting the boot in. They like the “trad wife” idea of submission. The quiet part they’ll deny in pubic is they don’t think women should have the vote. The part they scream in legislation is that we cannot be trusted with our own health care.

Talk about “Sharia Law” — they love it, minus the Muslim label.

My observation is that if the RW comes up with legislation that makes a whole group’s life immensely more difficult, dangerous, and unrewarding — that was the intended result.

ANd I have a copy of my birth certificate and marriage one.

But the Reich wing will do everything and make excuses to deter women from voting.

In my office here at home are kept my wife’s and my certificate along with my deceased parent’s certificates and also the certificates of two deceased siblings.

They are in the file with other important papers such as the will, marriage license, tax returns, college transcripts, various insurance policies , car loan, and home improvement loan.

this, but those who have lost their birth certificate to fire, moving, theft, floods, or have the pre-1970 photocopied (and thus invalid) microfilm versions.

Really, Kaleva? That is beyond the pale... I guess those trying to penalize married women who assume their husband's surname are blameless and it is these women who are just incompetent and irresponsible, cheap imbeciles who are being silly to complain about something MAGA wants to implement to prevent their voting. Yeah, we should all go along with THAT.

I guess I'm just too slapdash to be allowed to vote.

I had to show mine to get my Real ID drivers license and to get my CPL from the county clerk .

I also needed it to get my parents birth certificates to prove my relationship with them.

In my state, you can use your current drivers' license and a utility bill.

For the initial RealID, a driver's license doesn't work unless one of the identity proving documents was required in order to obtain it.

For a RealID, you have to prove identity (name and date of birth), social security, and legal residency.

https://www.usa.gov/real-id

For most people, the only two documents readily available to prove identity are birth certificate and passport (others are more obscure - again - unless your state previously required a birth certificate or passport to obtain it)..

General Document Requirements

1. Proof of Identity and Lawful Status: This could be a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. passport, or Certificate of Citizenship.

2. Proof of Social Security Number: A Social Security card or a W-2 form are common examples.

3. Two Proofs of Residency: These documents show your address and might include a utility bill, a lease agreement, or a bank statement.

In Pennsylvania, the current driver's license can be used as proof of residency but not proof of identity. For that you need the birth certificate or Passport. Is that not true in all states?

Really? Gawd. Men are not made to show that to vote--i.e., to reregister after making the fatal error of registering before they changed their name to their wife's surname.

Your compassion for the poor women of this nation is noted. Your recognition of the intense MAGA effort to disenfranchise WOMEN from voting is noted. Your lack of care for those who do not travel overseas or cannot even afford a driver's license, much less a REALID and thus have no birth certificate available to them (whether a pre-1970 nonvalid version, lost to all the reasons I mentioned earlier, or perhaps even to eviction) is noted. I am really disappointed at your seeming refusal to care and determined intention to blame those less wealthy (or male) as you. Because of course THEY shouldn't vote. That is what MAGA is saying.

Relish your entitlement.

…that lives with our daughter - certified copies of birth certificates and marriage certificate, photo copies of insurance policies, etc.

We figure the chances of both homes being destroyed at the same time are slight.

They charge $$ for certified copies, which most agencies require

Suggesting people are losers because they don't have backups all around the house is....weird

But not everybody has those organization skills. And for many women, their husbands manage all the important documents (as you do), and so may not have access to the documents themselves. (Of course you would give your wife access, you're Kaleva, but you and I know that not all men would.)

If, say, a husband thinks his wife shouldn't vote, or he was irresponsible and lost the paperwork, or maybe there was a fire or theft, or they got divorced and he refused to turn over her documents, or she fled an abusive home and left them behind, or....

None of those women will be able to vote without going through expensive and complicated steps - and they won't know it until they're turned away at the polls.

Creating new barriers to voting is not good for democracy.

Without saying I’ve done it myself then maybe it’s doable. Otherwise someone is probably blowing sunshine up your a—.