The Lawyer Defending Trump in the Russia Scandal Made His Name Representing Anti-Abortion Activists

Jay Sekulow is an avowed crusader for religious liberty.

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with anti-abortion activists during his campaign and since becoming president. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price is a staunch opponent of abortion with a history of opposing access to contraceptives. Teresa Manning, who became the deputy assistant secretary of population affairs at HHS, is the head of family planning efforts but doesn’t believe access to contraceptives can help reduce abortions. In fact, in a 2003 radio interview she said “the incidence of contraception use and the incidence of abortion go up hand in hand.” Meanwhile, the former head of Americans United for Life, Charmaine Yoest, is assistant secretary of public affairs at HHS.

Add to this list Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal lawyers hired over the summer to defend the president in the high-profile investigation into whether Russia hacked the US election. As we reported in 2012, “In the conservative political world, Jay Sekulow is hailed as an avowed crusader for religious liberty and the super-attorney behind the American Center for Law and Justice, a group Time magazine called a ‘powerful counterweight to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union.'” He has also been deeply involved in the anti-abortion movement for nearly 30 years, and in 2015 he began to represent the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) in lawsuits resulting from the deceptive and discredited videos it produced that suggested Planned Parenthood profited off the sale of “baby parts.” 

Sekulow has had a long history as a legal activist for the anti-abortion movement. In 1992, he argued in support of the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and others in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, where the court ruled anti-choice protesters blocking access to abortion clinics were not violating the constitutional rights of women. As Rewire  reports in its story about Sekulow’s anti-abortion work: 

Sekulow defended anti-choice activists in the 1997 Supreme Court case Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, where the Court ruled that “fixed buffer zones” around abortion clinics were constitutional. He lost a 2000 case before the Court in Hill v. Colorado, which ruled in favor of Colorado restrictions on “sidewalk counseling” outside of abortion clinics. In a biography posted to his website, Sekulow boasted that he has “submitted numerous amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court in some of the most groundbreaking litigation of the past quarter century” such as “pro-life legislation including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.”

The American Center for Law and Justice was created by televangelist Pat Robertson in 1990 and has also been involved in efforts to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurance provide contraceptive coverage with no out-of-pocket costs. In addition to his legal advocacy, Sekulow is a reliable guest on many conservative talk shows. On The Sean Hannity Showhe compared the contraceptive mandate to forcing people to eat pork when their religion forbids it. 

He also uses his radio show, Jay Sekulow Live!, to talk about his views on abortion, according to Rewire.

Sekulow seemingly defended Trump ahead of the 2016 GOP primary election after the then-candidate suggested in March 2016 that those who have abortions should face “some form of punishment” should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court and the procedure be made illegal by some states. During a subsequent March 31 edition of his radio program, Sekulow agreed that women could face punishment in some places should abortion be made illegal.

Suggesting that should some laws, seemingly such as so-called personhood laws, be put in place to legally consider a fetus a person, Sekulow said, according to Right Wing Watch, that, legally, “a state could say anybody involved in the process [of an abortion] is committing a crime, if you believe it’s a person.”

“There’s a political question whether they should be,” he continued. “I think that’s a legitimate point. But the legal issue is not improbable.”

In addition to his work on Russia, Sekulow’s presence in the White House gives one of the leading anti-abortion legal experts access to the president, whose administration has already started chipping away access to reproductive health care.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate