Posted on 06/24/2008 10:03:44 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
A woman who dated congressional candidate Mike Erickson seven years ago said she asked him directly whether he wanted to have a baby. He shook his head no, she said, and paid for her abortion.
In interviews with The Oregonian newspaper, the Oregon City woman said she met Erickson in September 2000 and that she had the abortion in January 2001. They saw each other afterward, she said, even going on a trip to Mexico in March, before the relationship ended. She spoke on the condition that only her first name, Tawnya, be used.
Erickson agrees that he gave Tawnya $300 for medical help, and a ride to a doctor's office, but said he didn't know she was pregnant or planned to get an abortion.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
“I am pro-life, and overall a social conservative, but I’ll tell you, the hypcocrisy charge is killing us. A party that is going to campaign on morality needs to do a better job of picking its representatives (like this guy, Larry Craig, etc).”
As someone once said: “Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue.” The crime of the hypocrite is failing to act on his, at least, declared principle. The hypocrite’s actions are not proof against the principle.
That is true, of course, but the GOP is pushing it so far that we look really bad.
Let’s just say for a moment he did not know. Is it possible? Given his mistress asks if he wants to have a child, he could have thought she was asking in the I need to go get tied or ob the pill, etc.
Not saying this is the case, but I could see a misunderstanding.
If this is true it’s really despicable. It’s bad enough for him to do something like this and hide it, but every time a Republican behaves like this it just makes the public think there isn’t any difference between Republicans and Democrats at all. It hurts the whole party and it hurts the whole cause. Not only did this immoral jerk kill his own baby, but he just made it harder to stop other people from doing it. Thanks a lot!
Of course, it’s still possible he’s been framed, so maybe he didn’t really do it... but sadly, too many Republican politicians seem to think it’s OK to have affairs and abortions and gay lovers these days, so it unfortunately won’t surprise me if it’s true. :-(
Remorse includes acknowledging that you’ve committed a sin, and apologizing for it. I think if this guy said he paid for a girlfriend’s abortion, realized it was wrong and repented and that’s why he is pro-life now, this wouldn’t ever have been such an issue. But he hid it and covered it up. And he’s still denying it, so if it’s true, he’s lying instead of repenting. That’s inexcusable behavior IMHO.
I could go either way with this story .... but it’s got too many suspicious lil red flags in there; the timing, as Sen Reid would say, is suspicious.
The abortion took place early in 2001 and nothing was made of it till now, but he’s supposed to remember the details, about an event he claims he knows nothing about (i.e., the abortion) ? I’ve known of men paying for girlfriend’s abortions (he claims she wasn’t a girlfriend’) but none of them doesn’t remember it.
If, in fact, she didn’t tell him of the pregnancy at the time, but said she needed $300 for medical care, he would have likely given it to her, knowing she had a low paying job, probably without benefits, and a 3 year old.
Then, he claims, she said she had car trouble and asked for a ride, stating her friend would take her home. Nothing too unusual there, either.
The baby could as easily have been the live-in ex-boyfriend’s child, and it doesn’t sound like he’d have been a likely candidate to hit up for $300. She, in fact, says she called Erickson because his business card showed him as president of a company.
She claims she was crying in the car as he dropped her off, he claims she betrayed no emotion.
She claims they vacationed in Mexico together; he claims he was there with other friends at the same time.
This could be a case of no good deed goes unpunished, or it could be that Erikson is just a cad. But this is too easy a way to ruin someone’s reputation, and political aspirations while at it.
And if Saul of Tarsus (killer of Christians), the one who changed his name to Paul, was running, would you vote for him?
You see, I have sex with the woman, but I don't actually know her or anything.
Wow, Christian or not.
I wouldn’t vote for Saul, and if that was how you read my question I should have stated it more clearly. I was asking if you would vote for Paul.
He is the person who emerged after the dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus.
My point is that people can, and do change dramatically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.