Once more, the United States Supreme Court is delving into the realm of abortion legislation.

On Friday, the justices have decided to consider arguments at a later time regarding the federal government’s authority to mandate that emergency room doctors at Medicare-funded hospitals must provide abortions in situations where they are necessary for stabilizing a patient.

A ruling may be made shortly before the 2024 election, which will determine the balance of power in both Congress and the White House. Democrats have promised to make this election a vote on safeguarding and increasing access to abortion, while Republicans aim to restrict the procedure.

The recent ruling from the high court grants Idaho the ability to enforce its ban on performing abortions, even in cases of medical emergencies. The ruling temporarily suspends a previous decision from a lower court that had prevented the law from being implemented.

The Justice Department has not yet responded to a comment request.

In May of last year, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, sent a letter to hospitals reminding them of their legal responsibility to offer abortions to patients in emergency situations. The current administration, led by President Biden, has also looked into specific hospitals for failing to meet these requirements.

A month ago, Idaho Acting Solicitor General Joshua Turner submitted a petition to the Supreme Court. Earlier this week, he once again requested that the justices take on the case. In a letter, he stated that other states, such as Texas, are facing similar issues and are currently engaged in a legal battle with the government over which takes precedence – state abortion bans or federal protection for emergency care.

Last week, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas and stated that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), which has been in effect for many years, should not force doctors in the state to provide abortions in cases where a patient’s life or health is at risk. This ruling permits the state to take legal action against doctors they believe have broken the state’s law prohibiting almost all abortions.

The federal EMTALA statute has been deemed superior to Idaho’s ban by a district court in Idaho. As a result, Idaho hospitals are required to follow the statute and provide abortions in emergency situations. The state has appealed this decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and will present its arguments later this month. However, Idaho has chosen to bypass this panel and instead present its arguments to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, which previously overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

This marks the second significant abortion case of the term that the court has decided to hear, which could have a nationwide impact. The issue at hand involves federal restrictions on abortion pills, which are utilized in over half of all abortions in the country. The outcome of this case could potentially affect the availability and accessibility of these drugs in states that have passed laws to protect their use.

Both scenarios focus on the conflict between red states’ strict abortion bans and federal laws designed to protect patient access to necessary medications and procedures.

The recent high-profile cases challenge a major point made by conservative judges in their ruling that reversed Roe. The majority stated that the “unappointed members of this Court” would no longer have the power to intervene in the democratic process and dictate national abortion laws. They argued that the decision now puts the controversial issue of who can legally end a pregnancy back in the hands of voters and their chosen leaders.

The court is scheduled to consider two cases that could greatly impact access to abortion across the nation, and there are also multiple other cases in progress in the legal system.

Several of these instances, such as those in Idaho and Texas, revolve around the issue of defining a medical emergency for a pregnant individual and determining when the state can challenge a physician’s decision.