To satisfy this definition, the Supreme Court addressed three questions that determined whether Abbott suffered from a physical impairment that significantly limited his ability to reproduce. First, the Court considered whether HIV was a physical impairment that limited a major activity in Abbott's life. Bragdon v. Abbott. Next, the Court asked whether reproduction was a major life activity. Finally, the court considered whether HIV significantly limited Abbott's ability to reproduce. The Court addressed all three issues and held that Abbott's HIV qualified as a disability or physical impairment that limited his primary reproductive activity. Thus, the court ultimately affirmed the previous courts' findings and remanded Abbott's case back to the First Circuit Court. The court found that the physiological effects of Abbott's HIV immediately limited his ability to reproduce by increasing the possibility of transmitting his infection to both his partner and his partner. child. Although Abbott suffered from asymptomatic HIV, the Court determined that his HIV still qualified as a physical impairment because "HIV infection is considered a physiological disorder having a constant and adverse effect on the heme and lymphatic system of the infected person from the moment of infection. » Bragdon v. Abbott. Thus, the Court ultimately held that asymptomatic HIV is considered a physical impairment: “Taking into account the immediacy with which the virus begins to damage the white blood cells of the infected person and the severity of the disease, we consider that This is a deficiency from the moment of infection. Bragdon v. Abbott. As a physiological disorder that immediately devastates the body, the Court affirmed that asymptomatic HIV qualifies as a physical impairment in the middle of the article......ices Ginsburg's concurring opinion. By shifting its focus from individual impairments to societal attitudes, I believe the Court can better assist people with disabilities who are fighting discrimination. The Court should reduce the burden on persons with disabilities by demonstrating that they suffer from a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Thus, I recommend that the Court adopt Justice Ginsburg's approach to disability in order to begin to recognize the impact of societal attitudes on popular discourse that affect perceptions of disabilities like HIV. By adopting this pragmatic and proactive approach, I believe the Court will lead a crucial paradigm shift by recognizing and changing societal attitudes to ultimately enable HIV-positive people to speak out against discrimination and access medical and community services. important that they require..