From a regular reader in SD: thank you. Thank you for letting your son live to love his mother. And thank you for plugging for those of us up here who don't believe that two wrongs make a right.

Stacy: I thank God, too, that you made the right decision. I counsel plenty of women who have had abortion, and they ALL regret it, period. I love what you have written on your sidebar: "I've never met who regretted NOT having an abortion." That is so true.

Have you ever thought of carrying your message to teenage girls? I know you probably can't do it at at public high school, but some other forum (although, I admit, I am not sure what that would be).

God's blessings to you and yours.

Whoops - it's getting late - too many typos and missing words in the above post. But, I think you get the general idea! :-)

So what did you end up using the money for?

Wow, Stacy. That's probably the best writing of yours that I've read so far. Thanks for sharing.

A dispute with the Texas law that this was patterned after was Roe v Wade. That Texas law also had no rape incest exceptions. Therefore it is important that these new state laws are almost identical. It comes down to all laws regarding life and death being decided on the state level.

If and when Roe v Wade is gone, some states will have laws like this. Some states will make exceptions and some states will have leagal abortion. But in all cases the laws will be enacted through the democratic process not judicial fiat.

Stacy, I have to hand it to you. You were wise beyond your years. Being adopted give me a different perspective on abortion. You and your husband have fantastic character. I can't tell you how this made me feel.

Very powerful commentary. God bless you.

Stacy, you are just beautiful, in so many ways. I can't help but wonder how your oldest son's life will be affected by knowing the gift that you gave him, and yourself as well. Perhaps someday when he marries and has children, he'll have a deeper appreciation and love for his kids than the average person. I imagine what you shared with him will also create a deeper bond between the 2 of you. Bravo to you, and to South Dakota!

The money was spent on maternity clothes of course :)

Cute! :))

Beautiful, Stacy, what a powerful message to be able to give your son and others.

My wife was adopted at birth and I know she and I and our two daughters are so grateful that was her mother's choice.

This post brought tears to my eyes. God bless you and your wonderful family!

Great story with a wonderfully happy ending. I just wish that more people would think things through before blindly going in for a "procedure". To borrow a phrase from the great Sean Hannity, "You're a Great American" ... and a great human being.

Sometimes you don't need a book to tell a helluva story (can I use that phrase?). Stacy, that's a terrific story and prayers be with you for your decision of nearly two decades ago to do the right thing.

Sorry to go against the flow here, but im thinking that this law is just going too far. Yes, abortion is a Bad Thing, and should be minimised as much as possible. But this law hasn't arrived from rational debate so much as by pandering to the 'Stop the Evil!' brigade and their reflexive actions. I am refering to the lack of a health exemption - that 'life' exemption is as good as usless.

Perhaps an example: Jane gets pregnent. Yay for her! Jane gets cancer four months later. Not so yay. Now, for optimal chance of survival, she needs chemotherepy. Now. But that would require an abortion. A fairly late abortion too. She could wait another five months and have her baby first, but the chance of her surviving if the cancer treatment is delayed would be substantially lower Really, it should be her choice - does she want to risk her own life for a not-yet-finished potential child? After all, it is replaceable at that stage, not much individuality in it if any. Or does she wish to protect it, even as the expense of herself? Well, tough - according to the moral crusaders, its not her choice to make. The doctors cant do their best to keep her alive. If she dies of cancer, then she is dying for Good and so her death is perfectly justified. At least she will probably go to heaven for her 'choice', forced on her. This isn't an abortion of convenience, its a medical necessity. But to some pro-life campaigners, that is an incomprehensable idea.

Contary to popular belief, Roe does not allow for all abortions. It only requires that first-trimester abortions are easily available, and that states may only prohibit later if they allow a comprehensive health exception. I dont like using a judicial ruling to set policy either, but in this case I feel it is needed to prevent exactly this type of law being passed - shameless moral-crusading, decisions made reflexively on 'the Eww factor' with not a thought to the potential consequencies.

I also consider the acts title to be a complete lie - "womans health protection" indeed. Would the PATRIOT act have passed if it were called the SPYONAMERICANS act?

(Last post by me.)

Suricou, actually you and I do somewhat agree on this. The rape and incest scenario not being included with this new law, is not a good thing. My only thinking, because I haven't researched it, is that the instances of a pregnancy resulting from r & i is so rare that it shouldn't be included, big mistake for the law makers. But you are wrong with one thing, there is an exemption in SD for the health of the mother. So, they did at least get that part right.

Now, technically if I were surveyed, I would be called pro-choice. I believe abortion to be premeditated murder. A painful, horrific ending of a human life. But I'm not one pushing for the overturn of R v. W. There are women out there who have no business having a child, horrible, horrible women. Abortion should be safe but rare. There are other alternatives that are rarely addressed and I think that adoption needs to be heavily pushed. I've known many women through the years who were unable to carry and/or conceive a child. Most of these women had had abortions. There are long term emotional and physical implications that are never addressed. PP claims to inform their patients, but how often are they told these things?

True, there is an exception. Its not a very good one - it doesn't say health, but life, and is defined very narrowly. I get the impression its included only as a legal formality. Im not a lawyer, but I suspect it would be quite difficult to use. As well as which, even if medicially nessicary abortions are legal, they are going to be very hard to obtain when there are no clinics or hospitals with the facilities to perform them. It means an out-of-state journey, and so considerable expense. Will insurance companies be willing to cover that? Some people are also worrying that the next step may be to outlaw traveling across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, for any reason.

The SK law looks to me like its intended to send a political message - it is an extreme law, and its the extremes its intended to appeal to. This is why there is no R&I exception. The intention of the law is to show that its supporters are at the most extreme end of the spectrum, and gain support from moral-crusaders.

Im sorry about my seeming rudeness. I know I can come off as very impolite here sometimes. There are a number of pro-life extremists (You are not one) who are willing to outright lie to support their cause. It is these people that my anger is directed at. I quite agree with the moderates, but I cant stand to see their reasonable views and campaigns being hijacked by manipulative moral-elitists who dismiss all those who disagree with themselves as 'evil'.