<p>Reproductive rights and justice paradigms have long been viewed as incompatible, largely because of their divergent orientations to the notion of choice. I argue that the dissenting opinion in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</i> (2022), which overturned <i>Roe v. Wade</i> and returned to states the authority to regulate abortion, goes partway toward bridging the gap between abortion rights and a health-oriented reproductive justice. After examining the potentialities and limitations of <i>Dobbs</i>, I turn to the 2022 Constitutional Court of Colombia decision, which decriminalised abortion up to 24 weeks, for an example of further integrated choice and reproductive justice paradigms. I then reenvision the concept of ordered liberty, at the centre of <i>Dobbs</i>, such that it invites consideration of the collective health and well-being of pregnant persons and their potential or future children. I contend that these collective interests should also be part of the balancing tests used in First Amendment challenges to abortion restrictions, which are increasingly considered alternatives to Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights claims. This reformulated balancing test would strengthen the co-articulation of reproductive rights and justice, as assertions of individual choice would be inseparable from those of gender, class, and racial equality.</p>