Editor’s note: this analysis was updated on June 23, 2026 to correctly attribute the memorandum referenced in the analysis to Legislative Legal Services, not the Department of Law.
After Governor Dunleavy vetoed 9 bills, the Legislature successful overrode two of those vetoes, one of which was for HB 195. State legislators sold HB 195 as a compassionate bill that allows pharmacists to prescribe common medications without waiting for a physician’s order. Proponents said the bill would increase patient access to basic healthcare, especially during crisis times caused by natural disasters. Pro-life opponents to the bill raised concerns about the bill’s potential to grant pharmacists the ability to prescribe chemical abortion.
According to an article published by the Anchorage Daily News on May 22, 2026: “The state Department of Law has explicitly stated that the bill would not increase access to medication abortions, but some conservative lawmakers and anti-abortion advocacy groups mounted a campaign claiming otherwise” The article was written by Juneau-based ADN reporter Mari Kanagy.
But that is not what the Department of Law said. What the Department of Law actually said was that the bill itself does not change current abortion statutes. A memorandum from the legislature’s legal services explains why that is not quite the same thing.
Representative Jamie Allard (R-Eagle River) inquired of the Legislative Legal Services whether HB 195 grants pharmacists the ability to prescribe chemical abortion. The answer was not an explicit statement assuring the bill “would not increase access to medication abortions.”
Here is the legal counsel’s response to Rep. Allard in a memorandum published April 1, 2026: “HB 195 expands the prescription and administration authority of pharmacists by amending AS 08.80.337 to allow pharmacists to prescribe and administer a drug that is ‘intended to achieve outcomes related to the cure or prevention of a disease, elimination or reduction of patient’s symptoms, or arresting or slowing of a disease process.’ However, before prescribing such a drug, the pharmacist would need to enter a ‘collaborative practice agreement with a written protocol approved by a practitioner who is not a pharmacist….’ If that written protocol included prescribing or administering an abortion drug for one of the reasons described above, then the pharmacist would be permitted to administer a drug that induces an abortion to a patient.”
The legal opinion does recognize a caveat: “One caveat, however, is that all health care professionals must confine the care they provide to their scope of practice.” Then the legal opinion acknowledges that current State law (As 18,16.010) “states that abortions performed in the state must be performers by a physician licensed by the Medical Board.” However, advance practice clinicians (APCs)— who are not licensed physicians— won a superior court case in which the judge ruled that AS 18.16.010 (a)(1) is unconstitutional when limiting a medical professional from acting within their scope of practice. The court “entered an injunction that prohibits the state ‘from enforcing AS 18.16.010(a)(1) against otherwise qualified APCs whose scope of practice includes medication … abortion.'” The case is currently on appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, “but the injunction remains in effect.”
According to the legal opinion, “If abortion care falls under the scope of practice of pharmacists and HB 195 gets enacted into law, pharmacists would likely make the same argument APCs made in that case and argue that AS 18.16.010(a)(1) unconstitutionally prohibits them from practicing within their scope of practice.”
So, in summary, HB 195 does not explicitly grant pharmacists the ability to prescribe abortion drugs, but it does give pharmacists a footing to challenge AS 18.16.010(a)(1) in court. Considering the court’s decision regarding APCs, it is possible the court would rule in favor of allowing pharmacists to prescribe abortion drugs. This would increase abortion access in the State of Alaska.
Now that HB 195 is law, can a woman walk into her local pharmacy and get a chemical abortion? No, not according to current law, but pharmacists may challenge that law as unconstitutional under similar reasoning as used by APCs.
Can a woman staying in a hospital be prescribed and administered a chemical abortion by a pharmacist? Yes, a pharmacist would be able to provide abortion in a hospital, but only if that pharmacist has a collaborative agreement with that patient’s doctor that explicitly grants the pharmacist ability to prescribe and administer abortion.
Read the full memorandum from Legislative Legal Services here:
