"In 2015, the federal government seized drugs the state bought illegally off the black market. The shoddy, shady sources for the deadly cocktails have become a weak spot death penalty opponents have leveraged."
wat?
wat?
> In June of that year, officials in Georgia discovered a work-around: a small-time businessman in London named Mehdi Alavi, who sold wholesale drugs through a company called Dream Pharma, would ship sodium thiopental to them. Georgia bought some from him, and then Arkansas did too. With Hospira offline, Alavi had the U.S. execution market cornered. Arizona bought sodium thiopental from him in late September and used it the next month to execute a convicted murderer named Jeffrey Landrigan. California placed an order as well.
> Maya Foa, an anti-death-penalty advocate based in London, saw Dream Pharma mentioned in court documents related to Landrigan’s execution and decided to pay a visit. At the company’s address, she found a small building with peeling white paint and a placard that read elgone driving academy. Inside she found two desks and, in the back of the room, a single cabinet. That was it: Dream Pharma. Alavi imported execution drugs from elsewhere in Europe and shipped them to the United States, using that cupboard in a driving school as his base of operations.
...
> Since Hospira had been the only FDA-approved supplier of sodium thiopental, states that had imported it had done so illegally. Prisons had become, in effect, drug smugglers, and while the FDA may have been willing to look the other way, the DEA was not. In March 2011, agents seized Georgia’s supply of sodium thiopental. In April, they seized Tennessee’s, Kentucky’s, South Carolina’s, and Alabama’s.
The reason why states can't source drugs to use them for killing is because, surprise, the corporations that manufacture them refuse to sell them for that purpose.
Limiting access to abortion is counter to the Supreme Court's decision that abortion is a right.
Limiting the methods of execution is to prevent undue suffering, which violates the constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.
That "No" is unwarranted - the strategies differ in the way you say, but they coincide in the way the post your responded to says.
If I scratch you to relieve an itch you can't reach, or I scratch you to violently gouge out your eyes, it's a meaningless comment to say "There's a moral equivalence to the method."
The only "equivalence" between the two original scenarios is that they both involve the verb "limiting," but there is no "moral equivalence" that automatically applies to any action using that verb. Or is there a "moral equivalence" between the laws to limit abortion and my attempts to limit my kid's screentime?
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?