Trains of thought offered in support of the recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization contain the assumption that women are not in possession of reason and therefore have no autono my, defined as the capacity for self-determination and free will, and the ability to act in accordance with moral reasoning. This train of thought follows the moral philosophy of Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. On this view, owing to their not being in possession of the facul ty of reason, women have no capacity to make ethical decisions for themselves around any matter, including the capacity to make deci sions about what to do with their bodies. If we can update the right to decisional autonomy contained in the abortion precedents to acknowledge that women are indeed in possession of reason and there fore also have autonomy in the Kantian sense, then a fundamental right to choose (to end one’s pregnancy) is a natural fallout of that expansion.