The bill seems to be aimed at rather narrow band of morality.
The companies that:
- on a conscientious basis refused to supply Alabama with certain drugs because they would likely be used for executions, but...
- would be willing to supply those drugs if it could be done in secret
I know that corporations in general have a reputation of being soulless, profit-generating, legal fictions, but the pair of conditions for which this law seems tailored are nearly mutually exclusive.
I am opposed to capital punishment for a whole host of reasons, but I continue to be surprised at how squeamish we (in the US) are about the method, given that there remains sufficient (thankfully waning) support for the deed itself (state sponsored killing) to continue.
Why is it less "humane" to put a bullet through a convicted murderer's brain stem than it is to administer a lethal dose of drugs?
The latter leaves a better looking corpse, but the former is demonstrably superior in the metrics of being painless and instantaneous.
Reminder: I'm not arguing for capital punishment, just calling out a couple of logical inconsistencies that rose to the forefront of my awareness upon reading the article Maggie posted.