The SAVE America Act is not an attack on women's right to vote.

When an organization presents itself to the public as a trusted nonpartisan source for candidate forums and voter information, how strongly can its national leadership advocate positions that closely track one side of a partisan debate before voters begin questioning the organization's perceived impartiality?

The SAVE America Act is not an attack on women's right to vote, and we should be careful not to confuse a documentation requirement with disenfranchisement.

Yes, many married women have a different last name than the one on their birth certificate. I understand that—I am a married woman myself. That may mean providing documentation connecting a maiden name to a married name, such as a marriage certificate, or using another qualifying document such as a U.S. passport.

That may be an inconvenience worth discussing. But an inconvenience is not the same thing as losing the right to vote.

Women are not being singled out by this legislation. The requirement applies to eligible voters regardless of sex: prove that you are a U.S. citizen when registering for a federal election and provide identification when voting.

We can have a legitimate conversation about whether the requirements are too burdensome, whether election offices should have better ways to verify citizenship electronically, and how we make sure elderly, rural, low-income, or married voters aren't unnecessarily inconvenienced.

But calling citizenship verification one of the most "brazen attacks on women's voting rights" in 106 years is political rhetoric that deserves scrutiny.

Women fought too hard for the right to vote for that history to be used as a political talking point.

Protect eligible voters. Make the process workable. And protect the integrity of our elections.

Those goals do not have to be mutually exclusive.