First, this kind of trade-off is based -- erroneously -- on the notion that motorcyclists are a public burden; that we're somehow more costly to government supported medical programs than other highway users. These bills are therefore fundamentally and unjustly prejudicial against motorcyclists.

     Second, there appears to be an organized effort among certain motorcyclist-rights leaders to introduce these bills throughout the nation. The first example of such a bill making it into law was in Texas, and it was not something introduced by ill-informed legislators or safetycrats. It was, in fact, introduced and shepherded through the process by a long-time motorcyclist-rights advocate. A similar bill had been introduced in Florida, and again, it is being championed by an individual who purports to be the foremost motorcyclist-rights activist in his state.

     Just recently, such a law was enacted in Kentucky. We were concerned to learn that the Texas and Florida individuals mentioned above both attended meetings in Kentucky prior to activists in that state accepting a discriminatory insurance amendment to obtain what they have described as a helmet repeal bill.

     Third, it is clear that this kind of unsubstantiated acceptance within our own community that we are a burden to society, can result in bizarre and dangerous attacks on motorcycling like we've not previously seen. One was described in this magazine last month when New Hampshire, which doesn't even have a mandatory helmet law, suddenly tried to adopt legislation to make unhelmeted motorcyclists buy higher insurance coverage. And there is a legislator in Illinois who has decided that we are such a threat to the health of the nation that he wants every motorcyclist in his state to be forced to sign an organ donor card. This is an abusive legislative obscenity, and I've got a feeling we may see worse not that some of our own leaders are embracing the concept that we are a public burden.

     Fourth, this legislation is a perversion of our fundamental principles. The individuals involved in this activity seem to have completely forgotten what started the motorcyclist rights movement in the first place. It was not to get rid of helmet laws. It was to reduce the intrusion of government in our lives. At the time, helmet laws were simply the most conspicuous manifestation of that intrusion. Those who would invite the government to place serious and discriminatory provisions on motorcyclists for the right to make a choice about helmets are trading one intrusion for another.

     Fifth, this approach is just to pat for comfort. It allows legislators to keep some version of their beloved helmet law, make the powerful insurance industry a little happier and get those nagging motorcyclists off their backs in one fell swoop. Activists who are backing this kind of legislation claim that it will be easy to get the insurance provisions removed through subsequent legislation or litigation. I doubt it.

     Sixth, it is an utter deception to tell motorcyclists that these bills are repealing mandatory helmet laws. These aren't repeals! These are nothing but a different kind of helmet law, containing provisions that are far more insidious than any straight and simple equipment requirement.

     And finally, the leaders of this movement are so single-minded in their dedication to this cause that they appear willing to sacrifice friendships, suppress debate and deliberately damage other organizations that disagree with them. Leaders in Texas and Kentucky have expressed much anger toward the AMA because we have criticized this legislation and have cautioned our members about the dangers of this approach. They have accused the AMA of threatening the unity of the motorcyclists rights movement. One has threatened to "declare war" against us, while another has said he will defame the AMA to members of the U.S. House and Senate. They have ordered us to stay out of their states, ignoring the fact that the AMA has thousands of members in each of those states, and an obligation to serve their interests.

     In response to this kind of hostility, we should remember "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," in which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. wrote, "I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inexcapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."