Did candidate Mike Erickson pay for girlfriend’s abortion? “Absolutely not.”
On May 13 JivinJ posted a story in (Prolifer)ations on accusations against pro-life OR congressional candidate Mike Erickson by his opponent Kevin Mannix of paying for a girlfriend’s abortion in 2000.
A couple items in follow-up.
First, Mannix’s mailer implicated OR Right to Life as having endorsed Erickson. I received an email of clarification from Lois Anderson, political director of the ORRTL PAC:
Hi Jill,
Just to make sure you know. We have solely endorsed Kevin Mannix for CD 5 in 2008. Erickson was endorsed in 2006 before she came forward with her story.
Second, Erickson is now saying he didn’t do it. From the Oregonian, today…
Speaking publicly for the first time… Republican congressional candidate Mike Erickson denied that he knowingly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion.
He acknowledged dating a woman named Tawnya for “a couple of months” in 2000 and helping her with financial problems but said he was unaware she became pregnant or had the procedure.
“I never asked anybody in my life to have an abortion,” Erickson said. “Did I pay for an abortion? Absolutely not.”
Erickson… said… it was a casual relationship and that he could not remember her last name or where she lived.
One day she asked him for a ride to a doctor’s appointment, he said. She also asked for financial help, and he gave her $300, he said, adding that their relationship soon ended.
The abortion charge surfaced in 2006…. Kristi Oetken, a friend of Tawnya, sent an e-mail to… media outlets claiming Erickson knew he had impregnated the woman and knowingly gave her money for an abortion. The allegations remain unsubstantiated….
On Monday, Mannix sent a letter disclosing the 2006 allegations to 60,000 Republican voters. He continued to press the allegations Thursday, this time with a letter sent to 36,000 Republican women who haven’t voted.
The letter, from Gayle Atteberry, executive director of Oregon Right to Life, called on Erickson to withdraw from the race, accusing him of dishonesty both in seeking the organization’s 2006 endorsement and in denying he had any role in Tawnya’s alleged abortion….
“When we approached Mike about these allegations, he admitted giving her money and dropping her at a ‘doctor’s office.’ He said he did not know she was getting an abortion,” Atteberry wrote. “No matter where you stand on abortion, Mike’s actions are troubling.”
Oh, come on. He gave her $300 but didn’t know why? He drove her to a doctor’s office but didn’t know what for?
And he doesn’t even remember her name? Low blow, Mike. You just lost the women’s vote.
[Photo credit: Mike Erickson for Congress]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Perhaps he is compartmentalizing!
LOL at Les!
Yeah, uh, this guy seems like a real jerk. And an idiot.
Well, if this guy is handing out money for doctor’s visits, no questions asked, I would love to have a little cosmetic work done!
‘Casual’ relationship…unknown last name…unknown address…doctor’s office visit…$300 fee…then the end of the relationship..
Sounds like a re-hash of a typical pro-abort movie…oh wait…this is real life!
His baby would have been my daughter’s age if he hadn’t handed over the 300 bucks.
Hey, Mary
I could use a few enhancements too! What a complete jerk. There are just TOO many of these men in politics.
he lost a lot more than the women’s vote…
His baby would have been my daughter’s age if he hadn’t handed over the 300 bucks.
Posted by: carder at May 16, 2008 3:00 PM
She might have found someone else to loan her the money.
Come on Hal,
$300 isn’t a bad price to pay to be permanently relieved of any responsibility. Abortion is so liberating for women, right?
Hal, knows all about women’s liberation.
Yet another Republican in yet another sex scandal. So much for the party of “family values.”
Sounds like a re-hash of a typical pro-abort movie…oh wait…this is just another “pro-life” hypocrite! bwahaha
Hal, knows all about women’s liberation.
Posted by: Patricia at May 16, 2008 9:58 PM
I’m sure this is meant as an insult, but I don’t get it.
Hal, (DUDE), you are do deadpan.
(Cheers, Bro’)
Doug
cheers Doug.
right over your head, Hal, eh?
“$300 isn’t a bad price to pay to be permanently relieved of any responsibility. Abortion is so liberating for women, right?”
Posted by: Mary at May 16, 2008 8:50 PM
Most times, of course it is. Nothing’s “perfect,” though, and some relatively few women aren’t making the best choice for themselves in the long run. That said, it can be true of most any decision, and no rational reason to forbid women from making such.
cheers Doug.
Hal, maybe it’s just me, but that didn’t sound all that cheery.