This week, on Tuesday, December 7th, 2016, the Ohio House sent a bill to our governor that effectively moved women's rights backward, not forward.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, I'm referring to "The Heartbeat Bill".

This bill would ban all abortion after a fetal heartbeat is heard at six weeks. There is one exception to the bill, such as in cases where the mother's life is in danger. However, this "bill" is actually an addition to a current bill which is being revised dealing with child abuse and neglect laws for Ohio.

The bill comes as a surprise to many Ohioans, who have heard nothing about the issue until we were notified it was being sent to the governor's office.

Unfortunately for the House and governor (who is John Kasich, the former Republican contender for the President), similar bills from North Dakota, Wyoming, and Arkansas have been found unconstitutional by Federal Courts, as well as dying in committees.

Here's are the issues with this bill:

1. Why it is unconstitutional

I'm genuinely interested in how this bill will not be found unconstitutional. There's one really important precedent set by the Supreme Court that the Ohio government has neglected to remember or read up on: Roe v. Wade.

For those who don't know the full story about the court case:

Ms. Roe was an unmarried woman living in Texas. At the time, Texas had a law extremely similar to this "Heartbeat Bill". Essentially, unless it was for a medical reason and at the advice of a medical professional, it was a felony to have an abortion. Ms. Roe felt that this was a violation of her First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She decided to bring a suit against Mr. Wade, who was the District Attorney for Dallas County.

Ultimately, Ms. Roe won the case in an almost unanimous decision, 7-2. The court ruled that a woman having an abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy did not pose a health risk to either herself or the fetus since the latter is "still largely undeveloped". They stated that the woman's right to privacy was more important than the state trying to regulate this decision. This decision made it illegal for any state to try and mandate if a woman could have an abortion in the first trimester.

In fact, this is the reason that every time a "Heartbeat Bill" has tried to go through a state government it has either fallen short when trying to pass through state government or has pass then later been deemed unconstitutional.

If the governor decides to sign this bill and make it law, it is only a matter of time before it is found unconstitutional by federal courts.

2. What about cases of rape?

The bill will require women who have been raped to keep the child if they do not have an abortion by six weeks.

....I'm sorry, but what?

First of all, if a woman has been raped, the individual has gone through one of the most traumatic experiences possible. She has been violated in the worst way possible. Now not only does she have to deal with the trauma and the physical pain of being forced to have sex, but now she has to keep the rapists' baby.

How does this make any sense? By the state passing this bill, they are essentially telling a woman that they do not care about the horrible experience of the woman and that they are putting a fetus's life ahead of the mother's.

3. How does the heartbeat have to be heard?

Mary Throne, a representative from Wyoming, brought up a wonderful point when hearing the "Heartbeat Bill" for Wyoming. “Is this abortion illegal at 22 days with a highly invasive ultrasound or is it illegal at 9 weeks when we hear a heartbeat with a stethoscope?”

This does raise some questions. It is a known fact that, depending on the type of medical equipment being used, that the heartbeat can be heard at different points of conception. So why has the Ohio "Heartbeat Bill" set the maximum date after conception to have an abortion at six weeks? There needs to be a logical reasoning from the state government as to why this time period was chosen and so far there hasn't been.

Does this bill even specify what type of medical equipment needs to be used? Do they want to use an extremely invasive transvaginal probe or will they be using a stethoscope? What about a regular ultrasound?

4. Why this is a step back for Women's Rights

Once again, you have the government trying to tell a woman what to do with her body and invading her privacy.

I don't understand why women are still having to fight so hard for having the right to make their own decisions. It's not just bills like these that try to impede on women's rights, but also issues like insurance companies not paying for birth control, or the nationwide defunding of Planned Parenthood.

This is a violation of women's privacy. There are many, many reasons that a woman might choose to have an abortion. But that's just it: it's her decision. Not yours, not mine, not the government's.

We've had this battle before and I don't understand why it's being brought back up again. Ms. Roe fought for women's rights in 1973. It's been a precedent for over 40 years. We shouldn't be trying to undermine it and therefore a right for women.

There are a lot of questions surrounding this bill, and these questions are likely to go unanswered before Governor Kasich signs the bill. Will federal courts strike down the bill, or will women have to watch their rights be taken a notch down?

And you know what?

Women should be allowed to choose for themselves just like men are.