LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) – As questions loom over the future of abortion and proposal 3, 6 News took the wording to a legal expert for some clarity.

If passed, Prop 3 would protect abortion and other reproductive health care treatments in the Michigan constitution. Some opponents however claim it’s vague and confusing and could open many unintended loopholes.

“This is vague and opens the door to what else could be defined under reproductive freedom. Because they don’t defined reproductive freedom in this initiative,” said Genevieve Marnon, legislative director of Michigan Right to Life.

Supporters have pushed backed, saying the proposal was clear for the thousands of voters who have signed the petitions.

“”Which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy”, that is a definition,” said Steven Liedel, attorney for Reproductive Freedom for All.

Opponents of prop 3 said terms like “individual” and “health care professional” are not defined in the amendment or haven’t been used in the constitution before.

They said that could be interpreted to include minors and people who are unqualified to make decisions without proper consent or medical knowledge.

However, Michigan State University College of Law Professor Heather Johnson reviewed prop 3 and said it’s common to find the term “individual” mixed with terms like “people” and “citzens”.

She adds that the proposed state constitutional amendment is structured to accommodate both medical and personal reason behind abortion. However, she understands how some could question its vagueness.

“I think numerating the options, allowing individuals have that choice. It could be for personal opinions or beliefs, medical reasons or religious reasons. So, there’s a lot of elements that could go into that gray area of choice,” Johnson.

Johnson clarified that the proposed amendment would not do away with current medical regulations guidelines.

The entirety of prop 3 and other ballot proposals can be found here.