What are Texas-sized implications following the Idaho abortion case?

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- Stakeholders in the battle over abortion in Texas have their eyes on a case playing out between Idaho and the federal government. President Joe Biden's administration sued that state over their near-total ban, arguing that it conflicts with federal law.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act is a federal version of a law originally passed by the state of Texas to end a practice known as "patient dumping." The legislation forces emergency room doctors to screen, treat, and stabilize a patient in an emergency regardless of whether they can pay.

Before this law, private hospitals could send poor patients or those without medical insurance to public hospitals for treatment, even in emergency medical situations.

The bipartisan law has been in effect on the federal level for around 40 years without much controversy until the recent overturn of Roe vs Wade.

The Biden administration argues that EMTLA supersedes Idaho's state abortion ban, which only allows the procedure in order to save a patient's life.

RELATED: Arizona Republicans block another Democratic effort to repeal 1864 abortion ban

Arizona Republicans on Wednesday again blocked a Democratic-led effort to repeal a controversial 19th-century ban on almost all abortions in the state, which the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled is enforceable.

In Texas, the reverse is happening.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has proactively sued the Biden administration, arguing that EMTLA is an example of federal overreach.

Women's Health Reporter Eleanor Klibanoff with The Texas Tribune said a Vinn diagram is a simple way to think about EMTLA and the state abortion laws. They both require doctors to act in order to save a patient's life, but there are differences.

EMTLA would allow a doctor to provide an abortion to stabilize a patient in an emergency situation. Bans in Idaho and Texas are stricter.

Both cases are being argued in court. The Texas case is at the appellate stage, but the Idaho case is headed to the United States Supreme Court.

"The Idaho case is slightly different but covers a lot of the same territory. How the Supreme Court rules on that will likely indicate the future steps of the Texas case," Klibanoff said.

In the meantime, pregnant people and providers are caught up in the middle of murky waters.

SEE ALSO: Public comment now open on Texas Medical Board's proposed abortion law exceptions

The Texas Secretary of State's office has posted the Texas Medical Board's proposed exceptions to the state's abortion law on its website.

"This lawsuit indicates at least Attorney General Ken Paxton and his office are dedicated to ensuring that line is not widened at all. That people are not accessing abortions beyond those super narrow cases," she said. "I think it is messaging to doctors, and we are hearing from doctors, that they need to be super careful and interpret those rules right. The state has a very narrow view of those contributing to the fear doctors are feeling about when they can provide that abortion, which in turn leaves patients stuck in this limbo waiting for medical care while doctors, lawyers, and people who are not actively impacted by this medical emergency debate the right path."

U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear Idaho's case on April 24. A ruling is expected in late June.

For updates on this story, follow Briana Conner on Facebook, X and Instagram.