Lawmakers hear CT witnesses urge ban on sale of drugs and devices used in executions

Dozens of witnesses told the General Law Committee on Feb. 10 that Connecticut should bar companies from manufacturing, selling or distributing drugs and medical devices used in executions elsewhere — a measure supporters say would make the state stop facilitating capital punishment through commercial supply chains.

The bill, Senate Bill 430, would prohibit individuals and companies licensed in Connecticut from manufacturing, testing, selling, compounding, distributing or supplying drugs or medical devices “intended for use in executions.” Supporters said the proposal is narrowly targeted to prevent Connecticut companies from profiting from executions while leaving legitimate medical and commercial uses untouched.

Bianca Teilich, executive director of WorthRises, told the committee that Connecticut‑based suppliers were identified in recent reporting and that firms such as Absolute Standards and a subsidiary of Walter Surface Technologies had connections to lethal‑injection drugs and to respiratory masks used in nitrogen hypoxia executions. Several family members of federal execution victims traveled to testify in person; others testified by video or phone.

"Connecticut abolished the death penalty in 2012," Teilich said. "Our laws should be consistent with our values. Connecticut corporations should not make products used to enable executions elsewhere." She and others pointed to industry controls and public statements by major manufacturers and trade groups that oppose misuse of medical products in executions.

Relatives of federal execution victims spoke emotionally about what they described as inhumane deaths. Jill Brown, whose son Christopher Vialva was executed in 2020, described seeing his final minutes after pentobarbital was administered and urged lawmakers to stop Connecticut companies from further supplying execution drugs. Reverend Bill Breeden, who accompanied a man executed in 2021, described the lasting trauma he experienced after witnessing a federal execution.

Advocacy groups highlighted the forensic and public‑health risks. Matthew Wells of the nonprofit Reprieve told lawmakers that the trade in execution drugs often occurs through opaque, unregulated channels and can generate unsafe products and supply chains that also threaten patient safety if diverted. Reprieve and others said 60‑plus manufacturers of FDA‑approved medicines have publicly adopted policies to block sale for execution purposes, and that passage of SB 430 would align Connecticut with that industry norm.

Opponents — including some industry representatives and witnesses who urged caution — warned about the difficulty of writing narrow language that prevents misuse while preserving legitimate manufacturing and research. Some lawmakers asked about the bill’s reach if a firm simply relocates manufacturing to another state.

Attorney advocates for the bill said the measure is designed to target intentional distribution for execution purposes and would not ban ordinary manufacture or sale where legitimate medical uses exist. Senator Maroney, a co‑sponsor, told the committee staff would provide draft language and that supporters were willing to work with the business community on precise definitions and exemptions.

What’s next: Committee members asked for technical drafting changes and for follow‑up material from proponents and industry on exemptions and narrow language. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Sources: testimony by Bianca Teilich (WorthRises), Lisa Brown (family member of an executed person), Reverend Bill Breeden, Matthew Wells (Reprieve) and others at the General Law Committee public hearing (Feb. 10, 2025).