Fact check: Under the save act, will women vote in 2028

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, women will technically still be able to vote in 2028 under the SAVE Act, but the legislation would create significant barriers that could prevent many women from exercising this right. The SAVE Act would require Americans to provide a birth certificate, passport, or other citizenship document to register or re-register to vote ^{[1] [2]}.

The most significant impact would be on married women who have changed their last names, as their birth certificates may not match their current names ^[3]. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson specifically noted that over 2.2 million women in Michigan whose married names do not match their birth certificate could be affected ^[4]. The legislation would also disproportionately impact women who have changed their names due to divorce ^[5].

The Brennan Center for Justice argues that the SAVE Act would disenfranchise millions of American citizens and represents a potentially historic setback for voting rights ^[6]. Legal experts and voting rights advocates describe this as a restrictive voter ID law that would harm women voters and could set women's voting rights back by decades ^{[7] [8]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about who would benefit from implementing the SAVE Act. While the analyses don't explicitly name specific individuals or organizations that would gain from restricting women's voting access, they do indicate that this legislation would "usurp states' authority to administer elections" ^[7], suggesting federal lawmakers supporting the bill would gain more control over election processes.

The question also omits the broader scope of impact beyond just women. The SAVE Act would disproportionately affect tribal citizens, low-income earners, and people in rural communities ^[4], indicating this is part of a wider voter suppression effort rather than targeting women specifically.

Missing from the discussion is any proponent perspective explaining the stated rationale for the SAVE Act, such as concerns about election security or citizenship verification, which would provide a more balanced view of the debate.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains a misleading framing by asking whether women will vote in 2028, implying a complete prohibition. The analyses show that the SAVE Act does not explicitly prevent women from voting ^[3], but rather creates bureaucratic barriers that could effectively disenfranchise many women voters.

The question's binary framing obscures the nuanced reality that millions of women could lose their voting rights not through an outright ban, but through administrative obstacles requiring documentation they may not readily possess. This type of framing could spread misinformation by suggesting either complete prohibition or no impact at all, when the truth lies in the systematic disenfranchisement of specific groups of women, particularly those who have changed their names through marriage or divorce.