The case pits a woman, Sidney Abbott, twice successful in lower courts, against a dentist, Dr. Randon Bragdon, who is appealing lower court decisions against him. Ms. Abbott, defined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Cirtcuit, in Boston, as a person with a disability, was refused treatment by the dentist after she revealed her HIV-status.

The Persons with Disabilities Act, which came into existence less than a decade ago, has yet to be interpreted by the High Court. Many citizens now take for granted what some fear may become just a blip in the collective memory--- disability coverage for the HIV-positive community. Based on previous reports of government atrocities, these people question genuine "interest" by U.S. Government bureaucrats in preserving the live of AIDS stricken citizens.

If it turns out that such "interest" is feigned, they say, certain vital protections might altogether disappear for people HIV positive or with AIDS. They argue that established financial conglomerates, protecting their profit-interests, dictate social policy through political=legal appointments.

Presently, federal laws prohibit discrimination against people who are disabled. The Court will be deciding whether or not HIV positive persons may be regarded as such and, additionally, if they will continue to be treated in the same manner as are those in whom the virus has developed into AIDS.

The definition of disability is, therefore, at issue.

An HIV positive person's reluctance to engage him/herself in the reproductive cycle will enter into the Court's defining of disability. This is because the Court of Appeals in Boston applied the Americans With Disability Act to the reluctant-to-reproduce Ms. Abbott when it decided in her favor.

The Boston decision argued that Ms. Abbott was disabled due to her inability to access a "major life activity," or participation as a mother in the reproductive experience considered every person's right.

The defendant, Dr. Bragdon, has allowed his lawyers to argue that the lower court's evidence supporting the plaintiff's supporters' claim to a reproductive disability is nil. It doesn't constitute a true disability, says the Bragdon case, and that while many HIV-positive individuals may forego child-bearing it does not otherwise prevent their entries into many social spheres.

The U.S. Supreme Court must decide upon a question about which lower courts are divided. Does asymptomatic HIV infection constitute a disability? A lawyer for Ms. Abbott was quoted in the New York Times, saying, "If this were a racial discrimination case we would be discussing the nature of the discrimination, not really whether the plaintiff is really black or how many black ancestors she might have had."