Source: https://essaysexperts.com/essays/politics/infertility-treatment-coursework.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:55:50+00:00

Document:
Can a right to reproduce be inferred from the Supreme Court's ruling in Bragdon v. Abbot?
The right to reproduce can be inferred from the Supreme Court's ruling in Bragdon v. Abbot. Bragdon v. abbot was a case sometimes back in the year 1998 where the Supreme Court of the United States of America came to a stand that reproduction indeed qualifies to be a key life practice in accordance to the Americans with disability act of 1990(ADA). The Americans with disabilities act of 1990 (ADA) was used by the supreme court in bragdon v. abbot to make a controversial verdict on a case in the year 1998. A woman had been deprived of the equity to see a dentist curtsey of her HIV status and the supreme court used the act to defend her rights.
The Supreme Court concluded that persons with HIV symptoms were immune from discrimination under the ADA Act. The courts contradictive opinion that limited the effects HIV on a woman’s reproducing ability, but not the devastating blow on a person trying to fight off HIV, led to giving protection of disability status to people with HIV symptoms. No supreme court has ever reasoned that the ability to reproduce was major life activity just like any other body physical ability. In that infertility was named a disability. The advocates had a hard task of convincin the courts that a person inability to reproduce should be taken like the persons disability under the ADA Act .
A certain observer came to a conclusion that life portrayed by law misses some logic in it. The law has absolutely nothing to dictate when logic commands gearing toward a completely different experience from what expected by law. For instance, logically infertility is not a disability and by experience where disability is all about loss of one’s limb or degenerative disease. In real life infertility creates no danger to a person’s physical health if no treatment takes its course. Infertility torments its patients physiologically which at times a diagnosis follows but the good thing is that it does not directly affect the involvement of people relation to surrounding both economically and socially.
On the other hand infertility is a disability because the courts have proven so. The law appears to hold to the stand that infertility is indeed inability. The ADA act protects people with reproductive disorders. It prevents them from being discriminated in work places. Generally it serves as a measure creating civil rights person’s disabled suffering from discrimination of which infertility patients are includeed.
The Supreme Court suggested the ability to reproduce is a major life activity just like any other body physical ability in the daily lives of human beings. It used the Americans with disabilities act of 1990 (ADA) which protected disabled persons from discrimination. The Supreme Court in the ruling then made infertility a disability by reasoning out that a person’s inability to reproduce is his or her disability. The Americans with disabilities act of 1990 (ADA) ensured that disabled people had the opportunity to enjoy their civil rights. This too applies to infertile people because them too are termed are disable persons thanks to the ruling made in Bragdon v. Abbot by the Supreme Court (DeLeire, 2000). This then tells that people who are infertile then can access infertility treatment. They too have the right to have insurance coverage for their infertility treatment. The Supreme Court ruling in Bragdon v. Abbot based on reasoning that the ability to reproduce was a major life activity just like any other physical life activity brought to the light that infertility was indeed inability. Using the Americans with disabilities act of 1990 (ADA) that protected the civil right of each disabled person then infertility took another shape in the society and infertility patients were to enjoy their rights too since they were termed as disabled.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.