Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg favors decriminalizing pedophilia and child sex trafficking

The legal definition of “age of consent” is:

Age of consent refers to the legally defined age at which a person is no longer required to obtain parental consent to get married. It also refers to the age at which a person is held to have the capacity to voluntarily agree to sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent may lead to criminal charges of statutory rape or sexual assault . . . .

Statutory rape is sex between an adult and a minor below the age of consent. Every state has a statutory rape law in some form. The age of consent varies from state to state, but is generally from 16 – 18 years of age. . . . Consent of the victim and belief that the victim is of the age of consent are usually considered immaterial.

A pedophile is an adult with “sexual fondness for and activity” with children, i.e., minors below the age of consent. Pedophilia is legally defined as sexual child abuse, i.e., any sexual activity with a minor below the age of consent, which includes fondling a child’s genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism, and commercial exploitation of children through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.

Since the age of consent in the United States which varies from state to state is from 16 to 18, lowering the age of consent to 12 would legalize pedophilia of children age 12 and above.

That is exactly what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee and daughter of Russian Jewish immigrants, recommends in a co-authored book that led to sweeping changes made by the federal government in the name of sex equality.


In 1977 when Ginsburg was General Counsel of the ACLU, she co-authored (with Brenda Feigen-Fasteau) Sex Bias in the U.S. Code: A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in April 1977, for which Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010.

The source of the information and quotes from Sex Bias in the U.S. Code you’ll read below is Executive Director of Eagle Forum Susan Hirschmann’s Testimony Re. Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Senate Judiciary Committee, July 23, 1993.

The 230-page Sex Bias in the U.S. Code identifies hundreds of federal laws alleged to discriminate against women and recommends an avalanche of government and social changes, including:

  • Military draft and combat duty for women.
  • Legalization of prostitution.
  • Sex integration of prisons, reformatories, schools and colleges and their activities (including sports), all-girls and all-boys organizations, and fraternities and sororities.
  • Changing the names of the Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts and Big Brothers of America to reflect sex integration.
  • Elimination of the traditional family concept of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker.
  • Comprehensive government child-care.
  • Adoption of sex-neutral language, e.g., “artificial” instead of “manmade”; “person, human” instead of “man, woman”; and plural nouns “they” and “them” instead of “singular third person pronouns”. At the same time, however, Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau hypocritically insist that the U.S. Department of Labor retains its “Women’s Bureau”.

Ginsburg wrote on p. 102 of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code:

Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense . . . . A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

Ginsburg (and her co-author) also recommends that the Mann Act be repealed. The Mann Act is a federal law passed in 1910 which makes it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose”.

From Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, pp. 98-99:

The Mann Act . . . poses the invasion of privacy issue in an acute form. The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates . . . . It was meant to protect from ‘the villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,’ ‘those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens. . . .’

In other words, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg has her way, sexual abuse of children 12-years or older would not be a crime, nor would child sex trafficking.

Ginsburg will be 84 next month. May President Trump be given the opportunity to nominate her replacement on the Supreme Court.

See also:

***Visit our new FREE SPEECH community built for our readers. Click to Join The Deplorables Network Today!***


Dr. Eowyn’s post first appeared at Fellowship of the Minds


Never Miss Another Clothesline Article

Subscribe By Email Today!


  1. Get her out … if we allow this insanity … we will be no better than the group of Obama followers that we are trying to keep our land safe from … this is not Islam and never will be as long as we fight it

  2. How is her ancestry relevant here?! I mean, why is it significant that Ruth Ginzberg’s parents were Jews from Russia?

  3. It will be a happy day when this reptilian creature dies. She repulses me and is a danger to life.

  4. I was going to comment on the article, but I have a bigger problem.

    .You need to learn how to load up ONCE AND FOR ALL. and then settle in.
    All this re-re-re-reloading and re-re-refreshing makes your page stop scrolling when it’s supposed to scroll and is making Firefox unresponsive

  5. I have heard in tv that judges are appointed for life. I think that must be changed. How can a judge, who has become senile or demented or with parkinson or alzheimer, still work as a judge and take neutral decision in court. Also what is totally wrong and disgusting is that judges have their own political view, they should be neutral instead and surely not belong to any political party.

  6. Are you people that stupid to get in a tizzy over something discussed in a law book Ginsburg co-wrote in 1977 40 years ago -and dredged up by the shameful “no children died at Sandy Hook” “Dr. Eowyn” AKA Maria Hsia Chang . Back in 1977 many states still allowed 13 year old girls to get married (Think Loretta Lynn, Jerry Lee Lewis) Ginsburg’s concern then was about the marriage loophole that made a 40 year old man raping a girl child change from “life in prison” to “perfectly legal.” Furthermore, many of these child rapists produced a back dated — but otherwise legal- marriage license — not only would it be an automatic “case dismissed” — but on his way out of the courtroom he could make his victim – legally his wife — go home with him and he could sexually abuse her as much as he wanted — as the law back then stated a husband could not be charged with raping his wife And you sickos make vile attacks – and hoping for the death – of Justice Ginsburg…

  7. Only someone who worships Satan would ever favor decriminalizing pedophilia and child sex trafficking. Justice Ruth Ginsburg is one Satanic bitch.

  8. People, this is FAKE news website and the story is a total lie that is probably meant to discredit Ginsburg’s moral reputation and judgement. I am no fan of hers but even I have enough common sense to know she is not in favor of perversion and would not allow a law that gives men or women the right to sexually harm a child. If you believe this fake news article then you are an imbecile with maggots for brains.

  9. I can’t believe this evil woman is on the Supreme Court. She has completely lost her mind. She doesn’t have the mental capacity to rule on anything.

  10. Once again: Did she not say she would resign if Trump became President? What is going on? It is time for her to retire?

  11. Didn’t ginsburg wear a hoody in respect for obozos son trayvon?? Pure Trash !!

  12. How did this vile excuse of a human being ever become a Supreme Court judge?! What a black eye and a crown of shame she is to America. Shameful!

  13. No sorry this is completely wrong. The author is conflating age of consent with pedophilia, which might seem logical but it’s not the way the law works and it’s not the definition of pedophilia either.

    If a 26 year old male sleeps with a 5’8″ tall 17 year old with large breasts, it would be absurd to consider him a “pedophile”.

    His crime is that he has slept with an underage girl.

    Those are different things.

    • You’re not allowed to think and reason. You’re supposed to just jump on the band wagon and accept the headline as written, regardless of what was actually said, by the old troll.. You’re supposed to see the headline, which is just someone’s extrapolated, interpretation of the meaning of what was actually said. No critical thinking allowed.
      You are a rare common sense person.. Well done!

  14. TREASON against the American people. This is a Sharia law that allows incest RAPE Paedophila. For a male of any age to marry 9 year old girls. So will it the united States Constitution and Christianity VS >ISLAM and Sharia law. Or one world government one world religion one world Bank. I’m sure we are past chapter 6 in the book of Revelations.

  15. She’s a degenerate who should not be serving this country in any capacity. She needs to be removed.

  16. The presence of Ruth Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, serves to point up the absurdity, of Supreme Court Judges being appointed for life.
    With appointments for life, a particular judge might sit in the bench for a quarter of a century or more. And to make matters worse, a particular president might get to appoint several judges, while another president might not appoint any, so the character of the court, is determined by accident & chance.
    To my way of thinking, the term limit, for Supreme Court judges should be 8 years, & their terms should be staggered, so that each president, can appoint 1 new judge, each year.
    This would have the effect of re-cycling the judges, so that any particular judge will not be overly long on the bench, & each president will have a chance to appoint some judges.

  17. Begin impeachment hearings in the Senate immediately. This judge is wholly unfit, always has been, and now IS SENILE AND DEMENTED. Her hidden Satanic compartment has burst its confinement and manifested itself to the World.

    • EVERY appointed government employee should be term limited. Judges, representatives, mayors, governors, city council, etc, etc, etc. Who ever thought of the lifetimes for officials? The Founding Fathers did not envision permanent lifetime politicians.

      • I totally agree BUT there is only one way thiis would ever get passed into law. They will NEVER pass this on their own.

        • Does every significant change have to be the result of disruptive street “demon-strations”? Is brute force and intimidation the preferred way to change things? If that is true and remains so, we have no rule of law.

      • Because judges are not politicians, and should not have their judgement influenced by doing the most popular thing to keep their jobs. The Founding Fathers did not envision lifetime appointments? How can you be so ignorant? Lifetime appointments are required by Article III of the United States Constitution.

        • They are not required, they are allowed, they are to serve terms “during good behavior”. Back in the late 1700s, life expectancy was approximately 36 years of age. Thus, the Founders, FOR JUDGES, did not envision justices that would be on the bench into their late 80’s, senile and demented, or serial wreckers of the Constitution. There was no need for term limits, because early death provided for same.

          Your mistake, the common one among simple people, those with an idiotological axe to grind, or some form of mental illness, use cheap polemic, and lies of omission. You are either of this form, or some kind of turdly Left Wind useless idiot.

          With regard to elected officials, during the early days of the Republic, public service was considered a sacrifice of a prosperous man who took time away from his profession to serve his country-similar to military service. The pay was barely adequate to sustain expenses. In the Federalist Papers and many letters and writings, the Founding Fathers reinforced and repeated this refrain.

          I have shown here, how a cheap propaganda trick by a lower order person like you can be used for unscrupulous manipulation of truth and principles.

  18. Straight out of the Talmud, which is the antithesis of nearly everything moral in Yahweh’s law and, arguably, the most anti-Christ piece of literature on the planet.

    You couldn’t find a better illustration for the abominable consequences resulting from the constitutional framers Christian test ban in Article 6, which, in turn, eliminated mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders, which, in turn, enabled Bill Clinton to become President, which, in turn, provided for Ruth Ginsburg’s appointment to the Supreme Court, which, in turn, allowed her wicked Talmudic adjudication upon America’s legal system, which in turn, has had a profound effect upon society’s immoral degradation.

    Article 6’s Christian test ban was the most hotly debated component of the Constitution in the States’ ratifying conventions for this very reason and yet they nonetheless adopted it and the rest of the biblically seditious Constitution as the supreme law of the land, also according to Article 6.

    WAKE UP MY FELLOW CHRISTIANS! We’ve been had and many of you are complicit in this sedition against Yahweh BY promoting the Constitution as the law of the land.

    For more, please see free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • The same holds true for partial-birth infanticide (wrongly termed “abortion”). Straight out of the Talmud:

      “,,,As it is with most things, the Jewish Talmud teaches something quite different from the Bible concerning when life begins. Consider the following quotation from The Jewish Encyclopedia, which, in turn, references the Talmud:

      ‘If young, by which is meant a new-born infant, it must be proved that it was not of premature birth; if prematurely born, it must be at least thirty days old to be considered a human being (Sifra, l.c.; Niddah 44b; “Yad,” Rozeah, ii. 2). But the unborn child is considered as part of its mother (Sanh. 80b); killing it in its mother’s womb is therefore a finable offense only (Mek., Nez. 8; B. K. 42b).’28

      “Consider also the following statements found under the heading “Abortion” in the Encyclopaedia Judaica: ‘…The talmudic scholars … maintained that the word “harm” refers to the woman and not to the foetus…. In talmudic times, as in ancient halakhah, abortion was not considered a transgression unless the foetus was viable (ben keyama; Mekh., Mishpatim, 4 and see Sanh. 84b and Nid. 44b; see Rashi; ad loc.)…. In the view of R. [Rabbi] Ishmael, only a Gentile [non-Jew], to whom some of the basic transgressions applied with greater stringency, incurred the death penalty for causing the loss of the foetus (Sanh. 57b)…. Abortion is permitted if the foetus endangers the mother’s life. Thus, “if a woman travails to give birth (and it is feared she may die), one may sever the foetus from her womb and extract it, member by member, for her life takes precedence over his” (Oho. 7:6). …when the mother’s life is endangered, she herself may destroy the foetus – even if its greater part has emerged – “for even if in the eyes of others the law of a foetus is not as the law of a pursuer, the mother may yet regard the foetus as pursing her” (Meiri, ibid.). …the majority of the later [Jewish] authorities (aharonim) maintain that abortion should be permitted if it is necessary for the recuperation of the mother, even if there is no mortal danger attaching to the pregnancy and even if the mother’s illness has not been directly caused by the foetus (Maharit, Resp. no. 99)…. A similar view was adopted by Benzion Meir Hai Uziel, namely that abortion is … permitted “if intended to serve the mother’s needs … even if not vital;” and who accordingly decided that abortion was permissible to save the mother from the deafness which would result, according to medical opinion, from her continued pregnancy (Mishpetei
      Uziel, loc. cit.).’29….

      “The previous Jewish quotations demonstrate that Talmudic immorality rather than biblical morality is influencing American justices as it pertains to infanticide. Consequently, America’s courts have become tribunals of injustice rather than courts of justice….”

      For more, see “Thou shalt not kill,” the sixth in a series of ten free online booklets on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, at

    • By the way, guess who was principally behind Article 6’s Christian test ban?

      “…The federal ban on religious test oaths almost immediately began to affect the States:

      ‘The federal test oath clause apparently had a liberalizing effect on the states. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 contained a much weaker religious test than its constitution of 1776, and by 1793, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Vermont had removed religious tests from their constitutions. The revision of Pennsylvania’s test oath of 1776 resulted in part from the
      efforts of Philadelphia’s Jewish community. In December 1783, the city’s one synagogue submitted a memorial to the civil authorities objecting to the requirement that state legislators acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. Four years later, Jonas Phillips, a Philadelphia Jew, petitioned the Federal Constitutional Convention concerning the same provision. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 accommodated the Jewish requests, requiring only that state officials acknowledge “the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.”’35….

      “Article 6 not only eliminated Christian qualifications for office holders, it paved the way for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists to be presidents, congressmen, and judges. It became the initial means by which America was transformed from a monotheistic Christian nation to a polytheistic one.

      “On both the state and federal levels, Jews40 were instrumental in the removal of the Christian test oaths and were the first to reap the rewards of these prohibitions:

      ‘By the end of the Revolution, Jews had been chosen not only to local posts in some cities, but had also been selected for more responsible positions in many parts of the country. There was no inclination to bar these people from public office and generally the question of the offensive oaths had only to be raised to be resolved. Thus the Jews of Philadelphia [led by Jonas Phillips], in 1783-84, protested as a “stigma upon their nation and religion” the requirement that members of the General Assembly take an oath affirming
      belief in the New Testament. The revised constitution of Pennsylvania, a few years later, explicitly barred the disqualification on account of religious sentiments of any person “who acknowledges the being of a God and future state of rewards and punishments.”41

      “The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia affirms that “This petition [by the Jews of Philadelphia] later on proved to be instrumental in the revision of the Pennsylvania state constitution in such a manner as to abolish the religious test.”42 On September 7, 1787, Jonas Phillips, a founder of Philadelphia’s
      Mikveh Israel Synagogue, also petitioned the framers at the federal
      Constitutional Convention:

      ‘Sires: … It is well known among all the citizens of the 13 United States that the Jews have been true and faithful Whigs, and during the late contest with England they have been foremost in aiding and assisting the states with their lifes [sic] and fortunes. They have supported the cause, have bravely fought
      and bled for liberty which they can not [sic] enjoy.

      ‘Therefore if the honourable convention shall in their wisdom think fit and alter the said oath [as found in the altered Pennsylvania Constitution] and leave out the words to viz.: “and I do acknowledge the Scripture of the New Testament to be given by divine inspiration,” then the Israelites [Jews] will think
      themselves happy to live under a government where all religious societys
      [sic] are on an equal footing….

      ‘Your most devoted obed. Servant,
      Jonas Phillips
      Philadelphia, 24th Ellul, 5547, or Sep’r 7th 1787.43’….”

      For more, see online Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land”
      of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian
      Perspective” at

    • Talmud versus Torah; the difference between secular Zionism and Torah Judaism. The Jewish bible – YHWY’s teachings; the books of Moses, or Torah, and the prophets, together Tenach, versus the writings of the Pharisees that Jesus opposed. Zionism is anti-Torah: We don’t read about Torah Jews’ enormous protests because they’re censored in the Zionist media. Zionists supplied 95% of Hitler’s funding, and US citizens are parasitized by Zionists to fund anti-Torah secular Israel.

      However, I think the real reason for Ginsberg’s proposal and California’s legalization of child rape is the protection of pedophiles – their legalizing their perversion to avoid prosecution. When will they go for child sacrifice? This is all NWO Luciferianism.

      • Mollie, thank you for your input.

        It’s actually the difference between Christendom and Judaism, regardless how it’s manifested. According to today’s Jews, Talmudism and Judaism are one and the same. This is why the term Judaeo-Christianity is an oxymoron. What was Christendom in 17th-century America became merely 4-walled Christianity and worse Judaeo- or Judaized-Christianity.

        Judaism is one and same as the oral traditions of the elders Christ so vehemently denounced in Matthew 15:6-9 and which was circa 500 AD codified into what today is known as the Babylonian Talmud, the antithesis of of nearly everything moral in Yahweh’s law.

        • I think you’re referring primarily to Zionists, a secular, not religious group. Even Jews whose beliefs are based on either Talmud acknowledge that Torah and the prophets are the only sources of divine revelation in Judaism. There are several groups of both Jews and Christians who acknowledge the New Covenant in Torah and believe that Jeshua ben David is the Messiah predicted in Torah and the prophets. I think your confusion is primarily due to Zionist control of the media and Zionist censorship and persecution of Torah Jews in both Israel and the rest of the world. The percentage of people who identify themselves as Jews and who also identify themselves as having no religious identification has increased from 7% to 32% this century, and your definition may apply to them.
          This is an Illuminati program which includes the 1909 Illuminati-sponsored publication of the Scofield bible, which includes unsupported edits and footnotes made by a 33rd Degree Freemason with no background in ancient Hebrew, ancient Hebrew culture or other qualifications.

          US Zionists provided around 95% of Hitler’s funding, and Jews who refused to emigrate to Israel in violation of Torah were murdered in concentration camps. Israel allowed only young, healthy immigrants with skills in either manufacturing or agriculture. Eretz-Israel land is 80% the property of Rothschild Zionists; the head Illuminati bloodline family.

          Short answer – Zionists have hijacked the term Jewish; a Luciferian plan, but Torah Jews are still here, and you’ve been drinking Zionist Koolaide.

  19. They say that Helen of Troy maintained a face that launched a thousand ship, but
    Ginsberg maintains a face that sunk a thousans ships. In addition, what took her so
    long to declare the obvious? Also, I am not a fan of women in politics. Look around
    Congress and you will comprehend my sentiments, with such worthless criminals such
    as Maxine Waters, Lewis and Cummings, all Black and Democrats, not to forget the
    likes of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the worthless female Congressionals. Politics is a
    man’s game, therefore, is the reason that only 5 leaders of their countries, have been
    women: Cleopatra, Elizabeth I, Catharine the Great, Golda Meir, and Margaret
    Thatcher. And to think that I would have had to add Hillary Rotten Clinton to this list,
    had she become the 45th POTUS. The former 44th worthless POTUS, can be included
    in the list of female sovereigns, because he surely does not belong in the list of male
    sovereign leaders, if you follow.

    • Dennis, you are funny and I mean that in a really good way. There is so much
      going on behind the scenes that I would love to email to you. It would give you
      an entirely different perspective of the real truth of our life, our etiology and not
      the smoke and mirrors they’re using to play us. Things are not as they seem by
      the conditioning we’ve had over the last 100 + years. There are actually only, 79
      legitimate actors in DC, Constitutionally, as all that is still behind closed doors of
      this nightmare will soon be exposed to all as mandated. Thank you for the endorphin
      release as the 1000 sunken ships visual still has me chuckling. You are right on!

  20. She is clearly insane and perverted herself…she should be removed from the Supreme Court immediately for being compromised…the only way anyone would promote something like this is if they are current participants in these acts or have friends in high places participating in these acts…this is both sickening and abhorrent…absolutely despicable.

  21. IMHO, anyone who even entertains legalizing such sick perversions, should be victimized themselves, just as the victimized children over the past 50 years, before they vote yes. They need to experience this evilness from a different perspective, first person abused victim or perhaps their children/grandchildren should be the poster children for it’s advertised support after their victimizing.

    What has happened to honor, self-respect and dignity? Is it now a requirement to be void of all decency and morals to hold some kind of office, live or work in that cesspool, DC? What is wrong with those who have betrayed humanity? Have they really sold their souls? Sure appears so.

    Ruth-less must be gone if that is her intent, before anymore damage is done to our country. If the elected’s choose perversions over decency, then they must establish their homes where their chosen despicable perversions are the “normal, acceptable lifestyles” of satan’s followers. Yes, even the ‘leaders are followers’, and nothing more than shallow puppets deceiving and robbing us blind.

Comments are closed.