This was very eloquent and all, but isn't it a moot point? The bill in question would only allow people to ride w/o helmets if they had insurance. Now, if the injured person has insurance then "we" get paid back (by the insurance company) for doing all this Christian stuff, so the whole "But it costs Society!" argument doesn't fly at all.
So what, then, can be your objection to the bill?
I said I favored the bill, Dr. F.