This is absolutely fake. And was brought up during her confirmation hearings. Ruth Ginsberg never argued about the age of consent one way or another.  The document you link to is one those documents presented as evidence before Supreme Court Nomination hearing, by an ideological/partisan group.  The Eagle Forum is not a neutral group.   They have a motive to give no benefit of the doubt and present the nominee's views in an extreme way.    The claim that she argued for lowing the age of consent is false.   She wrote a paper about using gender neutral terms in writing laws.  And she used current laws and bills to give bad and good examples of what she was talking about.  Her entire point was how gender was used in laws.  She was not writing at all about the age of consent and didn't volunteer her own opinion about the age of consent.   She used an example of another bill that was pending at the time that used gender neutral language. The way laws were written, you could argue that only girls could be raped, boys could not or that a female could never rape a male. Ginsburg wanted the existing law rewritten "to outlaw sexual abuse of any minor, male or female, by any person who is significantly older, male or female (thereby obviating the absurd possibility that a 13-year-old boy would be prosecuted for seducing a 15-year-old girl). " Here's some of what Ginsburg actually argued in that document.  "[T]he immaturity and vul[n]erability of young people of both sexes could be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions."  She was explicitly asked about this at her confirmation hearings. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal93-844-25162-1104248  SEN. HATCH: In 1975, while you were at the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], that organization adopted a policy statement favoring homosexual rights. According to what has been represented to me as minutes of a meeting on this matter, the following is noted: Quote, In the second paragraph of the policy statement dealing with relations between adults and minors, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a motion to eliminate the sentence reading — a quote within a quote — The state has a legitimate interest in controlling sexual behavior between adults and minors by criminal sanctions, unquote within a quote. She argued that this implied approval of statutory rape statutes, which are of questionable constitutionality, unquote. Now, I realize that these events took place over 18 years ago. So let me just ask you, do you have any doubt that the states have the constitutional authority to enact statutory rape laws to impose criminal sanctions on sexual conduct or contact between an adult and a minor, even where the minor allegedly consents? JUDGE GINSBURG: Not at all, Sen. Hatch. What I did have a strong objection to was the sex classification. SEN. HATCH: Sure. JUDGE GINSBURG: I think child abuse is a deplorable thing, whether it's same sex, opposite sex, male, female. And the state has to draw lines based on age. What I do object to is the vision of the world that supposes that a woman is always the victim. So my only objection to that policy was the sex specificity. SEN. HATCH: So as long as they treat males and females equally, that's your concern. JUDGE GINSBURG: Yes. And I think that as much as we would not like these things to go on, children are abused, and it is among the most deplorable things, and it doesn't — SEN. HATCH: And the state has power to correct it. JUDGE GINSBURG: Yes, and has power to draw lines on the basis of age that are inevitably going to be arbitrary at the edge. SEN. HATCH: Well, I'm relieved to hear that that was the basis for your objection, that the — it was a shock to me to learn that the — you know, that the Constitution — some people argue that the Constitution denies the state the right or the ability to protect young people and teenagers by forbidding sexual contact between them and an adult, even where the sexual contact is supposedly voluntary. And I'm concerned about that.