By Senior Contributor 
By APRIL SMITH
Aug. 15, 2026 – As a pro-life Alaskan who has dedicated my life to defending the unborn, I understand why some people have raised concerns about House Bill 195. Those of us who believe strongly in protecting unborn life should always be willing to ask hard questions and hold our elected officials accountable.
But we also need to be honest about what HB 195 actually does.
HB 195 does not authorize pharmacists to prescribe abortion-inducing drugs or perform abortions. That is not simply my opinion. Both the Alaska Department of Law and the Legislature’s nonpartisan Legal Services Division concluded that HB 195 does not change Alaska’s abortion laws or expand pharmacists’ authority in that area.
There are legitimate questions about what could happen in the future. The Alaska Supreme Court is considering a case involving Alaska’s law limiting abortions to licensed physicians. Planned Parenthood is challenging Alaska’s in-person requirements for medication abortions. There is also the possibility that the federal government could someday remove mifepristone from the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program.
These are legitimate questions. But none of these scenarios are created by HB 195. They exist independently — because abortion is currently legal in Alaska, because healthcare professionals already have prescriptive authority, and because Alaska law has never established in statute when life begins.
I have also heard questions about why Representative Allard’s amendment, which specifically referred to abortion-inducing drugs, was not adopted. I understand the reasoning behind that amendment, and I share the goal of preventing pharmacists from becoming abortion providers.
However, the Legislature’s attorneys warned that Rep. Allard’s language specifically targeting abortion-inducing drugs could face a legal challenge. The language ultimately adopted instead relies on the FDA’s REMS program, which includes mifepristone. It accomplishes the intended purpose without singling out abortion in the statute.
A law that is struck down by a court protects no one. I believe Representative Mike Prax understood that and made the right decision in supporting HB 195.
Some have suggested that pharmacists should be denied prescriptive authority because of these concerns. I respectfully disagree. If prescriptive authority itself is the concern, the same argument would have to apply to physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, naturopathic doctors, and every other licensed professional authorized to prescribe medication. Our healthcare system depends on qualified professionals being able to prescribe medication, manage chronic illnesses, and provide timely care across our state. Eliminating that authority is not a practical solution.
I also want to be clear about something else: Mike Prax is pro-life. He has always been pro-life, and I have no reason to question his commitment to protecting innocent human life. I believe he did the right thing by supporting HB 195.
If our goal is to protect unborn children, we should also be willing to address the fundamental issue directly. Alaska law does not currently establish in statute when human life begins. Rather than trying to address that question indirectly through legislation written for another purpose, we should have an honest conversation about when life begins and what protections our laws should provide to unborn children.
HB 195 also exists within a larger effort to improve healthcare access in Alaska, particularly in rural communities where shortages of healthcare providers are a daily reality. Expanding pharmacists’ scope of practice is part of Alaska’s Rural Health Transformation effort, supported by federal funding made available through President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. Alaska was awarded $272 million — the largest award in the nation — to improve healthcare access.
That does not mean we should ever compromise our pro-life convictions for federal funding. We should not. But it does mean we should understand what HB 195 was actually designed to accomplish.
I believe we can support better healthcare access while remaining firmly committed to protecting innocent human life.
If we truly want to strengthen protections for unborn children in Alaska, then let’s have the courage to address the fundamental question directly: When does human life begin, and what responsibility does our law have to protect it?
That is the conversation we should be having.
April Smith is a resident of District 33 and has been a pro-life advocate for many years.
Suzanne Downing
This article should have an APOC compliant disclaimer: “Paid for by the committee to elect Mike Prax. Mike Prax probably co-authored, and definitely approves this message.”
An ethical disclaimer should also be included: “The statements included herein reflect the authors opinion and are not supported by any statutory or case law text.”
A partisan disclaimer should also be included: “This article subordinates the purpose of the pro-life movement (establishing equal protection for all children from conception and without exception) in support of partisan politicians and their election efforts. This article surrenders the pro-life tradition of providing facts, logic, and reason, citing sources, and providing direct quotations of source documents for partisan political purposes.”
With respect to the line in April’s commentary that describes “ we should have an honest conversation about when life begins and what protections our laws should provide to the unborn”.
In that line we have a bit of misdirection and political correctness. First the term “UNBORN” immediately categorizes the human being into a gray area that simply does not exist if rational, logical, and scientific analysis is applied. The correct term is PREBORN. The preborn are human beings in a specific developmental stage of life just like the rest of us that exist in the world today. We are constantly entering into a new stage of development with each new day.
Secondly, the real honest conversation we should be having is the extreme stretch of the imagination one must have to realize the justification of abortion in Alaska based on the “Privacy Clause” as interpreted by an Alaska supreme court judge, an individual who’s only qualification for appointment to the position is that they can satisfy the nomination procedures as identified by the Alaska Judicial Council.
The reason we still have to suffer through the existing abortion ideology of the past 50 plus years, is not only due to the ideologue extremists in all parties, abstract opinions from judges, the obsession with “self” and the culture of death, but also the Pro-life groups themselves.
These pro-lifer’s and pro-life groups actually fight against the abolition of abortion. These groups ignore the obvious conversation and the reality. They perform a pretty convincing slight of hand trick with their supporters who truly believe they are applying their time and resources to eliminating the practice of child sacrifice. In reality the actions of many pro-life organizations protect the existence of abortion. The commentary provided by April Smith is a prime example of the misdirection in that it re-directs the entire conversation from HB 195 and what it does not do, which by the way is never explained, into an abstract explanation of their justification for supporting the bill and a small push to identify legally when the preborn child is actually a human. That question has already been answered. Charlatans all.