The Lady Speaks

Calling All Bikers

Bikers are a unique group. On one hand, they’re very strong on law and order, patriotism, and doing what’s right. On the other, they’re strong advocates for personal freedom and against government intrusions. Looked down on by the ‘establishment-types’ as “long-haired, tattooed freaks”, but also scorned by the liberals as low-class rednecks, bikers are a class unto themselves.

Now, it’s time to call on them, all of them, to do what’s right. Not just for themselves, but for all Americans. For every person who is tired of being told what to do and how to do it. It’s time to boycott South Dakota.

Many of you are wondering what’s worth boycotting in SD, but the bikers know.

One word.


This year is the 60th Anniversary Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. Bike Week is Aug 7-13, 2006, and over half a million people are expected to attend.

But not this year. This year, I’m calling on all bikers to boycott Sturgis, as well as all national sponsors of the Rally – Harley-Davidson, Coca-Cola, Jack Daniels, Snap-On Tools, and Budweiser, to name a few.

I’m calling this boycott to protest the SD legislature’s recent passage of a law banning all abortions with the sole exception being when the mother’s life is in immediate danger.

My goal is a 10% drop in attendence – approximately 50,000 people choosing to spend their money somewhere else. Assuming a miserly $100 spent per person, that’s $5 million dollars that will be lost from businesses in South Dakota. At $100 per person per day – food, lodgings, fuel, snacks, souveniers – we’re talking about a loss of $35 million dollars.

This isn’t just about abortion. This is about unwanted, unwarranted government intrusion into our personal lives. Just as many bikers don’t want their government forcing them to wear helmets, we women don’t want our government forcing us to give birth.

Until the legislature of South Dakota begins to recognize the rights of its citizens to make their own decisions, then South Dakota is dead to those of us in the other 49 states.

Buy beef and pork from other states, get credit cards from a company other than Citicorp, don’t buy a Gateway computer, take vacations in more female-friendly states.

I’m hoping to spread the word around the blogosphere and create a movement similar to what we saw during the Alito hearings. When you realize that a concentrated, organized effort of only FIVE DAYS convinced 25 Senators to vote ‘no’ on cloture, you begin to see the extremely serious effect we can have with nearly 5 months to plan, organize, and protest.

Boycott all goods, all services, and all events originating in South Dakota.

Correction: This year marks the 66th Anniversary of the Rally – not the 60th.


February 26, 2006 - Posted by | Politics, War On Women


  1. […] When South Dakota's legislature passed – and Governor Mike Rounds signed – the most restrictive abortion law in the country, making abortion illegal in every instance, with no exception for rape or incest victims, I, among others, called for a boycott of South Dakota products and events, (see Calling All Bikers) especially the state's biggest money-maker: the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. […]

    Pingback by The Lady Speaks » SD - making money despite anti-woman abortion bill | May 15, 2006 | Reply

  2. Hi guys, I’m getting ready to do a press release on my site with similar content and target audience as yours. Your site is obviously high on the food chain and so well done I thought who better to ask for advice. I have pretty much worked all the bugs out of my site and I am hoping it is ready to go live. How about taking a peek and if it isn’t too horrible throwing me some feedback? I would really appreciate it, thanks ahead of time!

    Comment by nolan motorcycle helmet | December 16, 2006 | Reply

  3. First off, no guys here. Just me, and I’m very female. 🙂 As for your flattering comment about where I am on the food chain…well, I’m no FDL. I’m not even FDL’s red-headed step-child’s dog’s food dish. 🙂

    Your site looks pretty good, though I would change the background color. It’s pretty tough on the eyes. A neutral light gray/brown/tan would work better, and would help 1st-time visitors focus on the content.

    Comment by PA_Lady | December 16, 2006 | Reply

  4. You are right that personal freedom needs to be protected. You see, that’s why this law was passed. Abortion goes directly against personal freedom. Please understand- the law was not created to intrude on women’s rights; it was created to protect human rights for all people, woman or man. Being torn apart in the womb (which the baby can feel, by the way) takes away the child’s freedom to live. In the last 35 years, 50,000,000 pre-born people were killed. That’s almost ten times the number of people killed in the Holocaust.

    “Oh but a fetus is just a clump of cells…it’s not a human, right?”


    [[[deleted abortion video]]]

    (It would be better if the video wasn’t trying to be so persuasive. The facts really speak for themselves. Never the less, the video does show the undeniable facts.)

    Comment by Susan | February 11, 2009 | Reply

  5. Prior to the age of viability, (ie: the point at which a fetus can live on its own outside the womb, which is somewhere between 22 and 26 weeks gestation) it is not “human” any more than a cancerous tumor or a tapeworm. It is a collection of individuated cells that has the potential to be human, but that is all.

    I would like to know why the “personal” freedom of a non-person is more important than the personal freedom of one already living and breathing who, for whatever reason, believes she should not have a child? Having been in their position, twice in my life, I know that no woman makes the decision to have an abortion lightly. It is a painful, difficult decision, made harder by people like you who compare abortion to the Holocaust.

    How about you and those like you turn your energies and resources to protecting and caring for some of the already-born, like minority and special-needs children currently in our nightmarish wreck of a foster care system?

    And, yes, I did disable the link to the video. Those who want it can search for it.

    Comment by PA_Lady | February 15, 2009 | Reply

  6. Dear PA_Lady,

    Thank you for responding. I can tell that you have the best intentions. But for goodness sake, who told you that a fetus is not a human prior to 22 weeks? I’m sorry, but you were missinformed. (As was I at one point.) A tumor or tapeworm never has the potential to become a human being. A tumor certainly doesn’t have a heartbeat. Nor fingers nor toes. It took me a long time to understand this. In reality, if the criteria for being a human being is to be able to live on one’s own outside the womb, then that would mean that a person’s not a person until they turn 18!

    I understand how painful it must be for you because I have gone through it myself years ago. They never told me it would be this way. They told me what they told you: “just a clump of cells.” They made it sound so clinical. I didn’t know that the baby could feel their instruments pulling it apart. They lied to me. It has been difficult come to terms with the fact that I allowed them to kill my baby. It has been the most painful decision of my life, as you mentioned as well. If it were really just a tapeworm or a tumor, it wouln’t be so painful. And I’m sure you would agree that the pain never goes away. Hopefully my unfortunate experience will help other women avoid going through the same thing.

    With Respect,

    P.S. I agree with you about taking care of the already-born children as well and cleaning up the foster care system.

    Comment by Susan | February 19, 2009 | Reply

  7. How very…patronizing you are. I notice that, while you argue the semantics of “life,” you avoid my point that you are advocating the rights of a non-person take precedence over that of a living one.

    A fetus may have toes and fingers and even a heartbeat, but it cannot live outside the mother’s body until viability. It cannot breathe, it cannot think, its heart cannot continue to beat without the sustenance of the mother. In other words, it is a parasite.

    Your guilt and remorse are saddening, and I’m sorry for them. Obviously your decison was not made lightly, and was based on the information and circumstances facing you at that time. Yet, you are willing to negate the rights of others to make their own choices based on their own circumstances.

    I do want to clear up one misconception: Although I have twice faced this decision, in the end – based on my own circumstances, family involvement, and other factors – I decided to continue those pregnancies.

    I was far luckier than many however. I had strong family support, I was emotionally and physically able to care for myself and my children, and – in the second instance, six years later – I had exceptionally good medical professionals who worked extremely hard to keep me healthy enough to deliver.

    Of course, the downside was that, like a good girl, I gave up my dream (and my full-ride college scholarship), got married at age 17 to the young man who (eventually) fathered my three children and, after 10 years of marriage punctuated with emotional abuse and affairs, walked out with his girlfriend, leaving me penniless and caring for three children under age 10.

    And you know who was there helping me through it? Not the church people who told me not to have an abortion, not the pastor who told me I’d go to hell if I left my husband, not the anti-choice crowd who showered me with bribes…er, gifts while trying to convince me not to have an abortion. Instead, it was the same family and friends who’d said, “Whatever decision you make, we support you.”

    I am not for abortion, but I am for the right of each and every woman to make the choice that best suits her own individual needs and life circumstances.

    Comment by PA_Lady | February 22, 2009 | Reply

  8. I’m sorry if you got the impression that I was patronizing. I wasn’t trying to be. I’m only presenting a different point of view and hopefully we can respect each other enough to hear each other out. If someone came to me with reason to change my view that really made sense to me, I would have to seriously think it over. I’m not here to “win.” I’m here to listen and learn just as much as I’m here to share what I’ve learned already.

    Here’s one question: Why is a fetus a “non-person” before the age of viability? You’re right, they can’t breath yet. And their heart will not continue to beat without the sustenance of the mother. But after a child is born, how does that change? If you left a newborn on a table to fend for themselves, would not the same thing happen in a relatively short period of time anyway? Of course it would. Because the person still needs sustenance. That doesn’t change ever. It’s just that as we grow up, we learn to administer our own sustenance. And besides all that, even if a fetus can live only by direct sustenance through the umbillical cord prior to the age of viability, that still doesn’t answer the question of how that makes them a non-person.

    I’m glad you decided to continue your pregnancies. And I’m glad that your family was there to support you. Now, my next questions are bold, and hopefully you will not take them the wrong way. They are just something to think about.

    Here goes: If you asked one of your children if it would have been a fair or legitamate choice to have gotten rid of them before they were born, what do you think they would say?

    Also, when the members of your family that you said would support you either way are holding your children, how do you think your children would feel if they knew that those family members would have supported you in making them not be alive?

    Of course no one has the intention of taking away woman’s choices. (Well maybe some people do, but not me nor the people I associate with.) The woman absolutely has a choice of whether or not to engage in a sexual act that could result in pregnancy. (It may seem to some that saying that seems to be trying to “twist things around.” But I’m not. I’m trying to untangle the false logic that is prevelant in our society and put the horse once again before the cart, so to speak.) Everyone knows that becoming pregnant is indeed a possibility when one chooses to have sex. No one gets pregnant and says “oh how did that happen…” No one gets pregnant from watering the lawn. So why is it not her responsibility to care for the being she has created? Even if you believe that an unborn child in the early stages of development is only a parasite, it’s her parasite. She actively and willfully participated in giving life to that parasite. I say she doesn’t have the right to end the life that she helped create even at that early age any more than she does after her parasite is born. Yes she had a choice, but that choice occured the moment she accepted the responsibility for someone’s sperm she allowed to get so close to her egg. (Please realize that for now, I’m not talking about cases of rape or inscest which make up about one percent of abortions in the U.S.)

    Forgive me if this message sounds a bit combative. I’m really not trying to be combative towards you or anyone else. But I am being combative towards what I believe are fatal misconceptions that many people hold. Please know that I have respect for you and respect for our discussion. The world will eventually change toward one point of view or the other. I believe that it will change toward the better view (whichever that is) if we as humans are not afraid to engage in honest dialogue without anger or resentment. It is through understanding that real change is made. That is just as true today as it was when people were trying to change the popular view that it was ok to own slaves or that an African American was 3/5 of a human being. Eventually someone had to sit down and ask, “Does that make sense?”

    Comment by Susan | February 23, 2009 | Reply

  9. The difference between a fetus and a “live baby on the table” is that the fetus demands its sustenance from its “host,” whereas the living child can be fed and nurtured by anyone.

    If we carry your analogy just a little further, you’re saying that, due to the overwhelming number of children waiting to be adopted, it would be acceptable to pull women off the streets and demand they care for these children. We’ll have a lottery system. Every menstruating female will be entered, (doctors will, of course, be required to report all newly-menstruating girls to be added and all newly-menopausal women to be removed) and when your number’s pulled, you’ll have to go to the nearest adoption center or foster home and be given the first child you see, regardless of your financial, emotional, or physical ability to care for that child. There will be no exemptions and there will be no extensions. You must become a parent immediately; you will not be allowed to get off with the excuse: “I’m sorry, but I’m not in a position to care for a child at this time.”

    That’s what you’re suggesting, or rather the anti-choice movement. Forced childbirth, forced parenthood.

    As to your question about my children: Do you honestly think that I haven’t talked about this with my children? Among those things we pro-choice supporters believe is that comprehensive sexual education is a must so that women (and men) can make informed choices in every area of their lives.

    My sons are 22 and 19, my daughter is 16. To the best of their ability, given their ages and the personal nature of my decision, they understand the reasons why I might have chosen another direction. Are they horrified by the fact that I might have chosen abortion? Do they look with horror at their grandmother and others who said they would support me and think, “OH MY GOD YOU WOULD HAVE LET MY MOM ABORT ME!”? No. In fact, my middle child takes delight in teasing his siblings that he was his parents’ only “wanted” child.

    You see, I don’t live in a home ruled by “OMG What will the children think?!” I live in one in which age-appropriate facts are given, where parents do not hope that ignorance and fear (of them, of some god, of community scorn) will keep them from trouble, be it with sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. Since about age 13, I have had frank discussions with them about these issues because I know the temptation is out there, but my job as a parent isn’t to keep them in bubble-wrap, it’s to give them the tools to make the best decisions possible for them. Even if I disagree.

    As to your “it’s her parasite” comment: Why does it always come down to punishing a woman for having sex? I don’t see anyone suggesting men spend nine months (and then the rest of their lives) being punished as well for “actively and willfully participating.”

    I’m simply saying this is, as many others in many other places have pointed out, a war on women. It is about controlling women and their bodies. It is about taking away women’s choices.

    In my personal opinion, what happens in my uterus or yours or anyone else’s is no one’s business, certainly not the government’s.

    Comment by PA_Lady | February 23, 2009 | Reply

  10. I’m not saying that every woman should be forced to care for a child. I’m saying that it is a woman’s responsibility to care for HER child. The one she created. Not someone elses. Yes, the baby needs the mother to be the “host” but that certainly doesn’t mean that the baby is a “non-person.” It seems that due to the baby’s obvious vulnerability in the situation, people have little trouble rationalizing terminating it’s life. But it is human. It is a person. It has uniquely human DNA, it has it’s own needs that are seperate from (even if still dependant on) the mother, and it sure doesn’t have fins or antlers. That’s a baby. A living human. This fact has been denied and distorted by the abortion industry, but it’s no less true. And women have to know this. I don’t call it freedom to take away a woman’s right to make an INFORMED decision.

    As far as being “punished” for having sex: No one is punishing anyone. The possibility of creating a life is a natural consequence of sex. And caring for that child to term is just a part of that consequence. Does it make sense to punish the innocent baby for the mother having sex? (That is if you believe that it is indeed a baby.) And I wholeheartedly agree with you that men need to be held responsible as well which is a highly under-addressed aspect of our society.

    Although this may not be the best example, it’s what I thought of when you said “host.” If you sent out invitations to a party at your home, and people showed up, would it not be your responsibility to be their host? Would you kick them out on the street and say “sorry, I just wanted to have fun sending the invitations, but I didn’t really want anyone in my house…?” The point is that having guests show up is a natural consequence of sending out invitations just as the possibility of getting pregnant is a natural consequence of having sex. It’s not puninshment, it’s reality.

    War on women: Do you believe that a bunch of people are sitting around having meetings about how to take away women’s choices? Or do you think you can imagine for a moment that it may be for another reason? Perhaps a bunch of people are recognizing that rights are being taken away from an entire group of people. You could call it the war on children. (I don’t suggest that most people are trying to go around being murderers of children, but I’m suggesting that many people don’t really understand what is happening and the abortion industry is pulling the strings and keeping people in the dark about it in order to profit.) Women aren’t being told the truth. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry that makes it’s money on trying to prevent women from making an informed decision. And that’s the real war on women! And to tell you the truth, I’m pretty pissed off about it. Someone is plotting, but it isn’t pro-life people. I’m just as much for women’s rights as you are, believe me. And right now, people like me are noticing that they are being obscured.

    Speaking of rights and plots and such, you may or may not be aware of how Planned Parenthood started in the first place. Margaret Sanger was a Nazi sypathizer and a strong supporter of Eugenics (Race Hygene) and Euthenasia. She believed that certain races of people didn’t belong in society. So in order to facilitate population control of that nature, she founded Planned Parenthood and placed them in poorer neighborhoods. She promoted birth control and abortion among minority groups including Hispanics, Jews, and Blacks. And so far, it has been working. In the U.S., about one out of ten children is aborted. Among the African American population, it is one out of THREE. Tell me that there’s not an agenda. And looking at it from that perspective, you may be able to see why I compared it to the Holocaust. I’m not saying that every woman who has an abortion is a mini-hitler, I’m saying that many women are wrongfully and dishonestly persuaded into making choices that may not really be the best for them. They are the victims rather than the perpetrators. And the machine behind it is in my opinion an overwhelming extention of Hitler’s philosophies.

    I think the main point where we dissagree seems to be whether or not a fetus before the age of viability is indeed a human. If it is not, than all your points are valid, well understood, and well taken and I believe you would be absolutely right. But if the fetus is really a human being, than I believe I’d be right and we’ve been making a huge mistake and it needs to be adressed. (Would you not agree? I don’t know if you believe that it would be ok to abort a baby if it was for sure a person. For now I’ll assume not.) It seems that the basis for each of our views are dependant on this one variable. I think that the “person or non-person” question is worthy of more investigation on each of our parts. Your thoughts?

    Again respectfully,


    Comment by Susan | February 23, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: