Given the broad scope of the ADA definition of disability, many of the persons who are disabled under the ADA are able to function with accomodation or special access provisions because of treatments or appliances that mitigate their condition. These include glasses, treatment for hypertension and diabetes, canes, crutches, wheelchairs, and myriad others. When such individuals have brought ADA actions, defendants have argued that the court should look at the effect on significant life activities after the mitigation, not in the unmitigated state. This question was even implicit in Bragdon: a tubal ligation or menopause would have mitigated the effect of HIV on her reproductive choices, thus arguably undermining her claim to be disabled if disability is judged after mitigation. The United States Supreme Court addressed the mitigation issue in a pair of cases that were handed down at the end of the 1998-1999 Supreme Court term.