The Citizens' Assembly has proposed rewording Article 41.2 of the Constitution, which concerns the place of women in the home.
The Assembly met yesterday to discuss whether the 84-year-old clause should be kept, removed or replaced.
It has been criticised over the years as being archaic, discriminatory and offensive.
A vote will be held by the Assembly in April.
Dr Laura Cahillane, a senior law lecturer at the University of Limerick, says replacing the clause with a gender-neutral alternative is now an option.
Speaking to Newstalk Breakfast with Susan Keogh, she explained that while Article 41.2 doesn't specifically say that "a woman's place is in the home", it does provide that "the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved".
Article 41.2.2 says: "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."
"It's that language, the woman's life within the home and her duties within the home that many people at this stage feel is an anachronism, is a product of a different time and is something we should actually take out of our Constitution," Dr Cahillane said.
"There are questions people often ask, like why was it put into the Constitution, what was the purpose of it in the first place and I suppose it's worth noting the idea wasn't to restrict women to the home or prevent women from working.
"The idea was to allow women to remain in the home and provide financially for them to do so.
"The biggest problem is that the policy was never put in behind it, so there was never an economic right developed for women out of this article in order to allow them to stay at home and care for their family and for the State to provide for them to do that."
Nobody has ever taken case arguing on that issue, arguing that the State should provide for women who wish to remain in the home, which is "unfortunate", Dr Cahillane added.
The only case law available on Article 41.2 has been "very conservative", she said.
"It is very unlikely at this stage that a court would say there's any economic right arising out of Article 41.2," Dr Cahillane stated.
"So really at this stage, it has no use for us in the Constitution and retaining that very paternalistic, you could say patronising, language in there just seems to be something people would want to remove at this stage."
Rewording the clause
Dr Cahillane said her views up until now, that the provision should simply be deleted from the Constitution, have changed following yesterday's Assembly.
She explained: "My now personal view was a cosmetic amendment, make it gender-neutral and take out some of the patronising language out of it, but that wouldn't be of any use to us.
"The problem is none of the wording that has ever been proposed in the past has actually given the choice to replace it with something concrete that would actually give rise to rights for women
"Yesterday the Assembly has now proposed a new wording which would go down that direction, which would actually create a more concrete right for carers.
"It would still leave the ball in the court of the political branches but it would also involve a role for the courts if it was felt that the political branches were not living up to their responsibility."
Dr Cahillane added she was "really interested to see" what the assembly will do in April, whether they would vote for that option or for the more "principled" choice of recognising the value of care but not giving rise to any rights, or simply deleting the clause.
"I think if we get a really strong vote one way or another in April from the Citizens' Assembly then that will be really determinative in what the Government will then do afterwards," she concluded.