ST. LOUIS – It’s an argument that many are making regarding the phrasing Missouri’s Amendment 3 uses of whether “reproductive rights for all persons” may be used as an umbrella term for treatments such as gender-affirming care for minors without parental consent.

FOX 2 reached out to legal experts on both sides of the argument to determine whether the phrasing could be interpreted for the use of legalizing gender transition treatment for minors.

Kelley Gillespie a professor of law and health ethics at Saint Louis University and Mary Catherine Martin, senior counsel attorney for the Thomas More Society, a Roman Catholic public-interest law firm shares their sides of the issue.

Gillespie explains this argument is used as a scare tactic in order to sway people from voting to pass the amendment.

“There is no credible argument to say it will legalize it,” Gillespie said.

Gillespie mentioned Missouri’s current ban on gender-affirming care for minors and said any amendment that passes needs to be challenged according to current statutes before any other laws are struck down.

She mentioned some laws that, if they deal directly with a total ban on abortion, may be struck down if the amendment is passed.

She furthered her argument, stating for reproductive rights to be directly tied to gender affirming care for minors would be an unnatural conclusion in interpretation.

Gillespie stated these arguments made to tie the two are “othering and stigmatizing” for the transgender community.

“The language of the amendment uses examples, all of which have to do with decisions made directly for the purpose of reproduction, such as contraception, care during pregnancy, and delivery.”

Gillespie noted the phrasing “included, but not limited to” used in the amendment.

“That doesn’t mean every other thing you might want to put on the list is included,” Gillespie noted. She said according to legal standards, words are known by the company they keep.

Gillespie gave an example if Amendment 3 were to pass and if the state were to propose a law to ban vasectomies, because they are done for the purpose of preventing contraception, this could be considered a reproductive decision.

“There a lot of things in healthcare that may have an impact on a reproductive organ, but not done for the purpose of reproductive decisions,” she said.

“I think the gender affirming care ban for minors has actually done more harm to people than helped,” Gillespie said. “But I wouldn’t stand up in court and suggest Amendment 3 would somehow make those procedures available again; it’s not a credible argument.”

Martin explains her side of the issue and said the amendment’s use of “all matters relating to reproductive healthcare” is broad and leaves room for a judge to freely define what matters relate to reproductive healthcare.

“Our Supreme Court has interpreted that exact language to mean that this definition is both open-ended and unconstrained by the examples,” Martin said.

“You first have to note that many of the other provisions being considered by other states to define reproductive healthcare in terms of a woman’s pregnancy, [Missouri’s] defines it with no constraints whatsoever.

Martin explained there is nothing in the amendment that would define reproductive healthcare for a judge to determine whether a matter is protected by the amendment.

“What is reproductive healthcare now? That’s what everyone is arguing about right now.” Martin said. “All matters relating to and including but not limited to are both unique to Missouri and express to judges that this category is supposed to be unlimited.”

Martin explained Amendment 3 would give healthcare providers the ability to label gender affirming care under the category of reproductive healthcare.

“We are being called crazy and engaging in scare tactics and being political for saying the same people who are currently arguing that the Missouri Constitution provides a constitutional right to children’s gender transition in five different places.”

Martin compared Missouri’s abortion amendment to Florida’s current ballot measure which she says is very clear on the issue.

“I’ll tell you what is true about Florida that is not true about us, they’re actually voting on abortion,” Martin said. “They are very clear about it with very clear existing legal standards.”

In regard to minors going without parental consent, Martin said because the amendment uses the word “persons” would include men, women and children changing the legal standards applicable to the rights this amendment would grant.

“No limitation on this right can limit the automatous decision making of the person seeking care,” Martin said. “This makes it impossible for anyone to enforce current laws requiring parental consent or for legislature to pass new ones as constitution would trump statue.”