TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Lawmakers in Congress have reintroduced a bill they say would ensure access to safe abortions across the country, just as abortion rights are being challenged with a strict Mississippi law that will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022.

The Women's Health Protection Act would allow for abortions in every state to happen without restrictions that aren't medically necessary. U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel, D-Fla,., who co-introduced the bill, said unnecessary restrictions include waiting periods or having to travel a far distance to get care due to clinic shutdowns.

"These restrictions are designed to control and criminalize women and/or their providers," Frankel said. "They steal from women the ability to make the important, life-changing decision of if and when to start a family. And it is a violation of their rights and their basic humanity."

In a survey released in January, 68% of respondents said they believe the constitutional right to abortion should be protected. And an Institute for Women's Policy Research study noted there would be more Florida women in the workforce if restrictions were lifted. As of Tuesday, no GOP legislators are co-sponsors of the bill.

From 2007 to 2016, pregnancy-related deaths were two to three times more prevalent among Black women in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Danielle Hurd-Wilson, interim deputy director of field and programs for the group Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, asserted that access to reproductive care also is an issue of racial and economic justice.

"Young people - and Black, Indigenous people of color - should be able to get abortion care free from unnecessary restrictions, such as mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods and others that shame, stigmatize and deny us timely, confidential abortion care," said Hurd-Wilson.

In the last decade, almost 500 state laws restricting abortion have passed, in legislatures around the country.

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Limiting women's access to abortion and other reproductive health care can have a devastating impact on state economies.

According to new data from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, restrictions on the books in Nebraska cost the state $1 billion annually in lost income, productivity and state revenues.

Andi Curry Grubb, Nebraska state director for Planned Parenthood North Central States, said women who cannot get care face economic challenges that can last a lifetime.

"Having access to safe and legal abortion, along with contraception and comprehensive sex education, all of those things together really allow people to better plan their futures and have control over their lives," Grubb asserted.

Nationwide, abortion bans and other restrictions are estimated to cost $105 billion per year.

Grubb pointed out while Nebraska doesn't look like Texas on paper yet -- where abortions are now banned after six weeks, before most women even realize they are pregnant -- the impacts of restrictions passed by lawmakers over the last decade have chipped away at a woman's right to access reproductive health care.

Nicole Mason, President and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said states with laws that restrict access to abortion, by imposing waiting periods or outright bans, disproportionately impact low-income women and women of color.

She explained restrictions hurt women by reducing their labor force participation, cutting into their earnings and increasing turnover.

"Lost earnings for women, women who have to cross state lines to access services," Mason explained. "For women, especially lower-income women, who may not have access to paid sick leave, or even health insurance, this also exacerbates the economic cost to them."

Grubb noted since the Texas law went into effect, people across Nebraska have come out in support of the right to safe and legal abortion.

"And we know that most Americans, including most Nebraskans, support access to this kind of care," Grubb stressed. "It's health care, that's all it is."

CONCORD, N.H. -- Reproductive-health advocates are calling on Gov. Chris Sununu to meet with them about the ban on abortions after 24 weeks, which is currently in both the Senate and House versions of the state budget.

A coalition of groups held a demonstration outside the State House before delivering a letter to the governor, requesting he join a forum at a time and place of his choosing, before he signs the budget into law.

Josie Pinto, co-founder and executive director of the Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire, which helps patients struggling to access an abortion get the funds they need, said the budget is not the place to pass an abortion ban.

"I just think that this law is one more barrier that's going to stand between a person and potentially life-saving medical care, and it just should not be on a politician to make that decision," Pinto argued. "That is a decision that needs to be between the doctor and a patient, so that's why we want to talk to him."

Pinto added abortions after 24 weeks are extremely rare, difficult to get and costly. She noted one call the fund received was for a 24-week abortion, and the quoted price was $8,800.

Dr. Nick Perencevich, a retired surgeon from Boston, shared his experience at the State House event as a physician training in the 1970s, tending to patients who were suffering complications from unsafe abortions that were not legal before Roe v. Wade.

"Criminalization does not stop abortions," Perencevich asserted. "They're going to happen. They're just going to happen in a very unsafe environment. The abortions go away with good family planning, not with restrictive legislation that penalizes doctors and patients."

Pinto added a majority of Granite Staters support access to abortion. More than 65% of New Hampshire residents believe it should be legal in all or most cases.

"I think, unfortunately, a lot of people don't know that this is happening right now, and I think if they did we would see a lot more vocal opposition," Pinto contended. "So I'm really just trying to educate people that this is happening, and through our state budget, of all things."

ST. LOUIS - Lawmakers in Congress are reintroducing the Women's Health Protection Act, which would ensure a pregnant person's right to access - and a doctor's right to provide - abortions without adding restrictions that are medically unnecessary.

Angie Postal, vice president for education, policy and community engagement at the Advocates for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, said Missouri has 44 regulations on abortion services. One requires a patient to make two appointments, three days apart. Since Planned Parenthood in St. Louis is the state's only abortion provider, the rule requires finding transportation, child care and time off work not just once, but twice.

"The Women's Health Protection Act would protect those people from these medically unnecessary political restrictions that have nothing to do with people's health," Postal said.

Recent polling from Hart Research Associates showed that more than 60% of voters nationally support a nationwide safeguard against abortion bans and medically unnecessary restrictions. That includes nearly 80% of Black voters and more than 65% of Latino voters.

Black, Brown and Indigenous women are more likely to face health risks during pregnancy and childbirth, largely because of racial disparities in the medical system. Danielle Hurd-Wilson, interim deputy director of field and programs for the group Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity, said every person should be able to make their own decisions about whether and when to become a parent.

"The violent legacy of restrictions on reproductive health care perpetuates white supremacy and anti-Black racism," Hurd-Wilson said. "It impedes bodily autonomy and it compounds harm from members of communities that have historically experienced barriers to health care."

The bill's reintroduction comes as the Supreme Court plans to hear a case next year about a Mississippi state law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, a time period in which women might not know they're pregnant. It's a case that is seen by many as another challenge to the standards set in 1973 in the Roe vs. Wade ruling.