top of page
Quilts for Ruth
Reed v. Reed (Log Cabin)
""Laws which disable women from full participation in the political, business and economic arenas are often characterized as 'protective' and beneficial. The pedestal upon which women have been placed has all too often, upon closer inspection, been revealed as a cage.'"  Appellant's Br. in Reed v. Reed, No. 70-4, June 25, 1971, quoting Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, 5 Cal. 3d 1 (1971).
Gonzalez v. Carhart (Goose Chase)
"[T] he Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.  This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited." Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 184–85 (2007)  (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
US v VA .jpeg
United States v. Virginia  (Double Wedding Ring)
"'Inherent differences' between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration, but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual's opportunity…. 'Benign' justifications proffered in defense of categorical exclusions will not be accepted automatically; a tenable justification must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded." United States  v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996).
bottom of page