Yet despite that interest, abortion is not top of mind for many voters, found. Three-quarters of registered voters said inflation and gas prices were their top concerns when considering decisions in the upcoming midterm elections. Abortion access was a key priority for 55% of voters, about the same as health care costs and gun violence. That was up from the 46% recorded by a KFF poll in February, after the Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case.

Democrats were much more likely to cite abortion as a top issue in their voting considerations than Republicans or independents. Increased concerns among female voters ages 18 to 49 were also evident in the poll, which found nearly 3 in 4 of them said abortion access was very important in their election considerations, up from 59% in February. Large majorities of Democratic and independent women in that age group said they want their states to guarantee abortion access, as do 4 in 10 Republican women of reproductive age.

The Supreme Court’s decision, however, does not appear to have had the galvanizing effect that some politicians expected. The poll found just a small increase in the percentage of voters who said they are now more motivated to vote from the percentage in May — 43% compared with 37% — after a leaked draft opinion from the court was published.

Among some key groups, however, the issue was more salient. About 6 in 10 female voters of reproductive age, up from 42% in May, said they are more likely to vote following the decision. Democratic and independent voters each reported a 9 percentage point increase among those who said abortion access was a motivating factor for the fall elections. A majority of Hispanic voters also said they are now more likely to vote.

More than half of independent voters and 83% of Democratic voters said they would support candidates who promise to protect abortion rights. One in 5 Republicans said the same, but just over half of GOP voters said they will favor candidates who want to limit abortion access.

The court’s decision appears to have created a split among Republican women, the poll found. A third said they disapprove of the decision and about a quarter of them say they plan to support a candidate who favors abortion access. The majority, however, said they will vote for people seeking to limit abortion.

Just over half of people living in states with pre-Roe abortion bans or laws that triggered bans or severe restrictions if Roe was overturned said they would rather have the state guarantee abortion access, while 32% of residents in those 17 states said they favor abortion bans.

Non-Hispanic Black Americans were also strongly opposed to their states banning abortions. Eighty-six percent said they did not want abortion bans, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic whites and 69% of Hispanic respondents. At the same time, 68% of Black Americans said they wanted their states to guarantee abortion rights, compared with 60% of white respondents and 61% of Hispanics. (Hispanics can be of any race or combination of races.)

The poll, conducted July 7-17 online and by telephone, has a 4 percentage point margin of sampling error for the full sample. For some of the subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

The changes were hailed by religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, it was “a return to common sense, long-standing federal practice and peaceful coexistence between church and state.” But others, including the National Women’s Law Center, said they plan to file suit against the rules. The National Health Law Program said that the rules appeared “legally suspect.”

Here are some frequently asked questions and answers about the new rules.

Q: What is the new policy?

Trump administration they are significantly rolling back rules requiring many insurers to provide contraceptive coverage to women. Employers with a moral or religious objection to contraceptive services will be allowed to stop offering that coverage.

Under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration had requiring most plans to cover all contraception methods that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration with no out-of-pocket cost to women.ÌýThe provision does not cover plans that have a grandfathered status under the law.

That guarantee was whittled back through regulation and court actions to exempt some religious-based organizations, such as churches, and some privately held companies in which the owners have strong objections to contraception. Other nonprofit religious employers were offered an accommodation so that they didn’t contract or pay for the insurance coverage for their workers.

The rules unveiled Friday expand those exemptions to any nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies with firm religious opposition, as well as health plans provided to students at colleges with a religious affiliation. A second rule extends an exemption to organizations and privately held companies that have moral objections.

If an employer doesn’t have any moral or religious objections to contraception coverage, current ACA guidelines still apply. Federal policy for programs that offer free or subsidized coverage to low-income women also will not change.

The rules become effective as soon as they are published in the Federal Register, which is expected soon. View them online and .

Q:ÌýWho is covered by the ruling?

Exactly who will be affected is in dispute.

In a , the Department of Health and Human Services said that the rules “will not affect over 99.9 percent” of the 165 million women in the United States. The exemptions announced Friday, HHS said, “may impact only about 200 entities, the number that filed lawsuits based on religious or moral objections.”

Groups that favor the ACA’s contraception coverage say the impact will be far larger.

“The Trump administration just took direct aim at birth control coverage for 62 million women,” Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “With this rule in place, any employer could decide that their employees no longer have health insurance coverage for birth control.”

Mara Gandal-Powers, a senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, said that even though many employers will not change their coverage, women in some places could find it difficult to get the health care they need.

HHS estimated in 2015 that were covered by policies that provide no-cost contraceptives. The number of women paying for contraceptives fell from nearly 21 percent in 2012 to by 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Ìý(Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

While some employers will be exempt from the ACA rules covering contraception, they may not be exempt from applicable state laws. Eight states currently have laws to employees, while another 20 states have laws requiring coverage of prescription contraceptives with the option of asking employees to pay some of the cost. Those state laws still apply, said Laurie Sobel, associate director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Q: How have the courts ruled previously on the ACA and contraception coverage?

In 2014, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow a key exemption to the health law’s contraception coverage requirements when it ruled that closely held, for-profit businesses could assert a religious objection to the Obama administration’s regulations.

The court’s majority said that the companies that filed suit — Hobby Lobby Stores, a nationwide chain of 500 arts-and-crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a custom cabinet manufacturer — did not have to offer female employees all of the Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives as part of a package of preventive services that must be covered without copays or deductibles under the law. The companies had argued that several types of contraceptives violate their owners’ religious beliefs.

The companies are family-owned, and they said that the health law’s contraception requirement violated their religious views. While both employers’ health plans covered some forms of birth control, they found some forms of emergency contraceptives objectionable, such as Plan B and Ella that can prevent a pregnancy if taken within a short window after unprotected sex. They said these contraceptive methods prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the woman’s uterus and therefore are a type of abortion.

In another lawsuit, religious groups, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns, said that complying with an Obama administration accommodation for religious-affiliated groups violated their religious views. In May 2016, the Supreme Court sent that lawsuit back to the lower courts to see if a compromise was possible.

Q: How does the Obama administration’s accommodation work?

The Obama administration’s policy also did not apply to churches or houses of worship. And in response to protests from other nonprofit religious organizations — such as church-affiliated hospitals or schools — officials set up an accommodation that allowed those employers to not contract for contraceptive coverage as part of the insurance that they offered workers. Instead, the insurance plan that served their employees would provide coverage, at no cost, to the workers. Some of those groups, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, objected to this setup and challenged the policy in court.

KHN’s coverage of women’s health care issues is supported in part by .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .