Would Jeff Sessions investigate Planned Parenthood as Attorney General? - Live Action News

[TomSea]

Would Jeff Sessions investigate Planned Parenthood as Attorney General?

November 19, 2016 | Calvin Freiburger

One of the biggest tests of the incoming administration’s commitment to the preborn will be whether it investigates and prosecutes Planned Parenthood for its criminal activities relating to the for-profit sale of aborted babies’ organs. The Obama Administration’s reaction to revelations was to take the abortion giant’s spin at face value, with top administration officials admitting they didn’t bother to watch more than “snippets” of the Center for Medical Progress’s explosive undercover videos, Attorney General Loretta Lynch showing no interest whatsoever in doing her job and investigating the evidence, and President Barack Obama continuing to maintain that Planned Parenthood deserved Americans’ tax dollars.

Well, President-elect Donald Trump’s latest big announcement wasn’t an outright confirmation that such an investigation is coming, but it could be a good sign. To the enthusiastic approval of pro-life groups, he has revealed that he will nominate Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to serve as the new Attorney General:

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions has dedicated his life to public service. He has a distinguished legal career and has served as both the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and Alabama Attorney General prior to his service in the U.S. Senate. He has been one of President-elect Trump’s trusted advisors on the campaign and will now continue his service as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

“It is an honor to nominate U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General of the United States,” said President-elect Trump. “Jeff has been a highly respected member of the U.S. Senate for 20 years. He is a world-class legal mind and considered a truly great Attorney General and U.S. Attorney in the state of Alabama. Jeff is greatly admired by legal scholars and virtually everyone who knows him.”

Why should this announcement encourage pro-lifers? Throughout his lengthy legislative career, Sessions has maintained a 100% pro-life voting record. Moreover, he led the effort to filibuster Obama’s very first pro-abortion judicial nominee, David Hamilton, has earned praise for his conviction that the rule of law should trump (no pun intended) any administration’s political preferences (a breath of fresh air, considering Planned Parenthood’s heavy financial support for Obama and other pro-abortion politicians who’ve returned the favor by covering for its crimes), was not intimidated by howls that defunding Planned Parenthood would shut down the government (he called them “ludicrous” and maintained that Obama lacked “the moral authority, the political clout, to tell the American people that the Congress shut down the government”), and is already on record demanding that Planned Parenthood be prosecuted—and now he’ll be in a position to make sure that it finally happens.

Read More At: http://liveactionnews.org/would-jeff-sessions-investigate-planned-parenthood-attorney-general/

[TomSea]

He looks like a stellar pro-lifer:

Jeff Sessions on Abortion
Republican Jr Senator (AL)

Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008

Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)

Continued: http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Jeff_Sessions_Abortion.htm