The US Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in an important abortion case.
On Wednesday it considered a challenge to Texas abortion regulations, which require that hospital-like standards are met at abortion clinics.
Many are in favour of the proposed new law because the regulations protect women from unsafe abortions, as well as help to protect the life of the unborn child.
However, pro-abortion activists are challenging the law because it makes it harder for women to obtain the procedure.
The court's eight justices are currently divided on the issue, while Justice Anthony Kennedy holds a swing vote. It is currently unclear which way Justice Kennedy will vote.
The court is expected to rule on the case in June.
Law would require hospital-grade facilities
The case centres around two particular regulations that were passed by the Texas Legislature in 2013 and were due to come into effect last July.
One part requires that doctors performing abortions must be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital, while the other requires all abortion facilities in the state to meet the standards for “ambulatory surgical centers.”
The part of the law that requires hospital admitting privileges has already come into effect – but the requirement for clinics to have hospital-grade facilities has not.
Last summer, a number of Texan abortion facilities were due to close after failing to meet these requirements, but the Supreme Court intervened at the last minute, voting 5-4 to suspend the provisions until an appeal was heard.
At the time, Texas Governor Greg Abbott defended the regulations, saying:
"Texas will continue to fight for higher-quality healthcare standards for women while protecting our most vulnerable – the unborn, and I'm confident the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold this law."
Ruling 'likely to end in a 4-4 split'
The Supreme Court's ruling later this year will determine whether or not the regulations can come into effect.
Experts say the ruling is likely to end in a 4-4 split (particularly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia).
In this case, the law would be implemented but the court will not set a legal precedent nationwide.