This article examines Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart to argue that her feminist jurisprudence challenges the rhetorical genre of judicial opinion. Ginsburg's dissent undermines the rhetorical commitments to neutrality, abstraction, and universality that overwhelmingly shape the voice of the law. Instead, Ginsburg's rhetoric advances a more promising field of argument for advocates of reproductive choice and shifts the language of the law to legitimate voices, experiences, and rights of groups traditionally excluded by the rhetoric of the law.