Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 705.0

524US2

Unit: $U96

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

660

BRAGDON v. ABBOTT

Opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.

tance,’ ” ibid.; see also Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 702
(10th ed. 1994) (“greater in dignity, rank, importance, or in-
terest”), ignoring the alternative deﬁnition of “major” as
“greater in quantity, number, or extent,” ibid.
It is the lat-
ter deﬁnition that is most consistent with the ADA’s illustra-
tive list of major life activities.

No one can deny that reproductive decisions are important
in a person’s life. But so are decisions as to who to marry,
where to live, and how to earn one’s living. Fundamental
importance of this sort is not the common thread linking the
statute’s listed activities. The common thread is rather that
the activities are repetitively performed and essential in the
day-to-day existence of a normally functioning individual.
They are thus quite different from the series of activities
leading to the birth of a child.

Both respondent, Brief for Respondent Abbott 20, n. 24,
and the Government, Brief for United States as Amicus Cu-
riae 13, argue that reproduction must be a major life activity
because regulations issued under the ADA deﬁne the term
“physical impairment” to include physiological disorders af-
28 CFR § 36.104 (1997).
fecting the reproductive system.
If reproduction were not a major life activity, they argue,
then it would have made little sense to include the reproduc-
tive disorders in the roster of physical impairments. This
argument is simply wrong. There are numerous disorders
of the reproductive system, such as dysmenorrhea and endo-
metriosis, which are so painful that they limit a woman’s abil-
ity to engage in major life activities such as walking and
working. And, obviously, cancer of the various reproductive
organs limits one’s ability to engage in numerous activities
other than reproduction.

But even if I were to assume that reproduction is a major
life activity of respondent, I do not agree that an asympto-
matic HIV infection “substantially limits” that activity. The
record before us leaves no doubt that those so infected are
still entirely able to engage in sexual intercourse, give birth