Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 686.0

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 624 (1998)

641

Opinion of the Court

1630, App., p. 351 (1997)). We need not resolve this dispute
It cannot be said as
in order to decide this case, however.
a matter of law that an 8% risk of transmitting a dread and
fatal disease to one’s child does not represent a substantial
limitation on reproduction.

The Act addresses substantial limitations on major life ac-
tivities, not utter inabilities. Conception and childbirth are
not impossible for an HIV victim but, without doubt, are
dangerous to the public health. This meets the deﬁnition of
a substantial limitation. The decision to reproduce carries
economic and legal consequences as well. There are added
costs for antiretroviral therapy, supplemental insurance, and
long-term health care for the child who must be examined
and, tragic to think, treated for the infection. The laws of
some States, moreover, forbid persons infected with HIV to
have sex with others, regardless of consent.
Iowa Code
§§ 139.1, 139.31 (1997); Md. Health Code Ann. § 18–601.1(a)
(1994); Mont. Code Ann. §§ 50–18–101, 50–18–112 (1997);
Utah Code Ann. § 26–6–3.5(3) (Supp. 1997); id., § 26–6–5
(1995); Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.011(1)(b) (Supp. 1998); see
also N. D. Cent. Code § 12.1–20–17 (1997).

In the end, the disability deﬁnition does not turn on per-
sonal choice. When signiﬁcant limitations result from the
impairment, the deﬁnition is met even if the difﬁculties are
not insurmountable. For the statistical and other reasons
we have cited, of course, the limitations on reproduction may
be insurmountable here. Testimony from the respondent
that her HIV infection controlled her decision not to have a
child is unchallenged. App. 14; 912 F. Supp., at 587; 107
F. 3d, at 942.
In the context of reviewing summary judg-
ment, we must take it to be true. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e).
We agree with the District Court and the Court of Appeals
that no triable issue of fact impedes a ruling on the question
of statutory coverage. Respondent’s HIV infection is a
physical impairment which substantially limits a major life
In view of our holding, we
activity, as the ADA deﬁnes it.