Lets start with this:
The Bush administration lifted a moratorium imposed in 1998 by the Clinton administration on using human testing for pesticide approvals. Under the change, political appointees are refereeing on a case-by-case basis any ethical disputes over human testing.
The tests include a 2002-04 study by University of California-San Diego in which chloropicrin, an insecticide that during World War I was a chemical warfare agent, was administered to 127 young adults in doses that exceeded federal safety limits by 12 times.
New EPA rules under development envision permitting the agency to accept data from human tests on children, pregnant women, newborns, infants and fetuses. Even newborns of “uncertain viability” could be tested under the draft EPA rule.
Here’s where the story gets a little complicated. A provision was introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer that would prevent such testing. The provision was approved by a 60-37 vote. But there is a problem:
Ordinarily, approval by both House and Senate would ensure the language is retained in the final version of the bill. But GOP floor manager Conrad Burns, R-Mont., opposed Boxer’s amendment, and as lead Senate negotiator on the bill, is well-positioned to kill it in future talks with the House.
Burns countered with an amendment, adopted 57-40, in favor of human testing. It instructs the EPA to study whether human testing is conducted ethically whether the benefits outweigh the risks to volunteers.
50-47 that sounds almost like a straight party line vote to me. At any rate it sounds like the Culture of Life loving republicans are saying it’s okay for pesticide makers to test pesticides on pregnant women and unborn children but abortions are out? Or did I miss something?