Sources Say “Pro-Life” Congressional Candidate Paid for Abortion


During the Oregon primary we covered the allegations made against "Pro-Life" GOP candidate for Congress Mike Erickson, by his Republican opponent Kevin Mannix. Erickson won the primary, and today, The Oregonian moves the story from political allegation to hard facts, supported by several sources. From the story:

Tawnya, now 34, recalled sitting with Erickson in his new
Mercedes that January, parked across from the abortion
clinic. "I was bawling so hard I couldn’t speak. He looked
so sad. He looked like he cared," she said. "I asked him, ‘Are you sure you don’t want a
baby?’ " she said.

"He shook his head. I
opened the door, got out bawling and crossed the street and
walked up to the clinic." Erickson, 45, said he dated Tawnya "for a couple of
months."

He told The Oregonian he didn’t remember
many details about their relationship, including where they
met or when they dated. He said she betrayed no emotion
during the car ride. "Did I pay for an abortion? Absolutely not,"
Erickson said.

"She was having some financial troubles," he said.
"She asked for some money to go have a doctor’s
appointment — not knowing what that was — and whatever
happened, happened, I guess. I didn’t even know she had
an abortion."

Erickson has campaigned on a strict anti-abortion platform
that favors abstinence education and adoption over abortion.
His opponent in last month’s primary, Kevin Mannix,
spotlighted the abortion story in a mass mailing to voters a
week before the election. Mannix did so without
Tawnya’s knowledge or consent.

 

 

The story, based on documentation and conversations with multiple sources, goes on to detail a trip Erickson and Tawnya took as friends, with other friends, after the abortion. His denial about knowing that the money he provided was for an abortion rings even more hollow when reading about his accounting of the trip:

"It wasn’t like we
were on a boyfriend-girlfriend trip," Erickson said.
"We were friends, mostly." Erickson said he’s almost certain he did not spend an
intimate evening with Tawnya in Mexico. "I don’t think I did," he said. "I
don’t believe I did."

 

Either you had sex in Mexico or you didn’t, and even if it wasn’t that memorable, you’d probably recall.

Mike Erickson is a metaphor for what is happening in the "Pro-Life" movement this election cycle. The hypocrisy, evident for everyone to see, is not just that he claims to be "Pro-Life" while paying for his girlfriend’s abortion, but also in the fact that the entire "Pro-Life" movement is morally bankrupt. Promoting abstinence-only, making contraception more difficult to access, and outlawing abortion does nothing to prevent unintended pregnancies. Had Roe v. Wade been overturned when this happened, would Erickson have acted differently? Would the pregnancy miraculously not have happened?

The image of this man, in his Mercedes, giving a woman who makes $13.37/hour, $300 for "medical help" that he claims he didn’t know the reason for, is akin to people of means knowing they will always be able to get access to health care needs, whatever they may be, while denying those same rights to others. Erickson is not talking about preventing abortions in his campaign, he is talking about prohibiting them, overturning Roe v. Wade, because as a person of wealth and power, he’ll always find a way around the law. He’ll always be able to look reporters in the eye and deny reality.

The question in this election is not about ending abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade, it is about electing people who believe in education, prevention and providing necessary reproductive health care to all women. Reproducitve health care that includes contraception, so that unintended pregnancies, like the one this "Pro-Life" candidate helped create, are more rare, and that women who choose to terminate those unintended pregnancies, as this "Pro-Life" candidate encouraged her to do, can access the same safe, legal care Tawnya did.

The "Pro-Life" movement can continue to make Roe v. Wade a litmus test, pretending that changing the law will eliminate abortion. The reality of one of their own candidates, Mike Erickson, suggests otherwise.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Scott Swenson please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Conservatives often don’t see a discrepancy between their own private abortions and bans on abortion that primarily affect other people.  It’s like the drug laws.  Rich kids and politicians can smoke and snort away without worrying about it too much, because the laws against drug use are there to torment and imprison working class, primarily non-white people.

     

    You see this in the pharmacy refusal crap.  Pharmacists want the right to refuse on a case by case basis.  Maybe this one thinks all women are sluts and won’t give any the pills.  Maybe this one only gives it to women who get a permission slip from husband or father.  Or maybe this one decides whether you "deserve" the pills based on the length of your skirt. 

  • invalid-0

    Amanda is exactly correct. The right wing has no compassion or empathy for anyone not like them, while the left attempts to understand life’s grey areas, acknowledge the realities of human nature, and allow people of all kinds to live with less judgment, and within a more practical circle of morality and justice. Mike Erickson shows the true colors of the Republican law and order crowd and the indignantly righteous crowd. They tell other people how to live but only pay lip service to the ideology that they use to fool people into voting for them, meanwhile they do the same things they say are bad, and set up a society totally unprepared to deal pragmatically with real issues like sex, drugs, violence and poverty. Erickson is just like William Bennett, Glenn Murphy, Bob Allen and their whole bogus crowd.

  • invalid-0

    < ...Promoting abstinence-only, making contraception more difficult to access, and outlawing abortion does nothing to prevent unintended pregnancies....>

    Of _course_ it doesnt; that has NEVER been the intent of the anti-abortion gang. Their intent is strictly and solely to keep control of women’s reproductive capacity in the hands of the patriarchal state first and foremost, and individual men secondarily.

    Since this harsh reality would repulse thinking people, they developed the whole “sanctity of human life”; “killing innocent babies” rhetoric to sugar-coat their real intent and bamboozle people into going along with this agenda.

  • invalid-0

    What I think is sad is that Tawnya has been exposed publicly here on an extremely personal decision. Her choices and body were thrown under the bus for political purposes.