This is one of the cutest things you'll see today. Continue reading…

Is America seeing a religious revival, or is the anecdotal evidence of another Great Awakening simply evidence of anecdotes? I set out to attempt to answer that question with Ryan Burge, a nationally recognized expert on religious demography in the United States. Burge is in the unique position of being both an observer and practitioner of the Christian faith as a professor in the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis and as a pastor who had to close his church. I reached out to ask if the religion expert was seeing signs of a revival in the data from the United States. “[T]he answer, at least as far as we can tell, data-wise is no,” Burge stated, adding: “There’s no evidence of a massive return to religion.” He did caveat that he was still waiting to see some of the numerical figures following the assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, which has produced a cornucopia of anecdotes about Americans responding to Christianity. The political scientist described how a substantial religious revival would show up in the numbers.  “The share of people going to church weekly is around 25% right now. Let’s say, let’s assume 28% would be a religious revival, 3% increase,” Burge said. According to the professor, that would translate to around 10 million to 12 million new church attendees arriving for worship on Sunday, compared with three months ago.  There are “about 300,000 churches in America,” Burge explained. “That means every single church in America would be averaging 30 to 35 new attendees now that they did not have in July,” he stated. The political scientist acknowledged the good vibes appearing in popular culture and from the media, but at the end of the day, he said, there just simply wasn’t much evidence to support the notion of a macro-level nationwide revival currently underway in the U.S. What there is evidence of is a plateau in the data documenting the decline of religious affiliation between generations in the U.S. Over the past several decades, each successive generation has come to identify less with Christianity than its predecessors. But that trend has appeared to have ended with the Zoomers.  “Specifically, the religiosity of Gen Z is not that much different than the religiosity of millennials,” Burge noted. But that in and of itself does not mean we are experiencing a large-scale resurgence in Christianity. “Saying that 50 years of religious decline is now reversing in the last three months, that’s an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary evidence, and we don’t have that,” Burge said. The political science professor agreed that more investment in religion research would be helpful in reconciling the accounts of revival with the broader scope of reported data. “There are threads in American Christianity that need to be pulled on, right? I think the Orthodox Church is one of them, because it’s what the data says, and what people tell me is so conflictual,” he said. When asked what was one thing he hoped a revival in the U.S. would accomplish, Burge said he hoped it “would get people back into real-life community, you know, meeting in person on a regular basis and doing social things with other people on a regular basis.” “So, it obviously would lead to, you know, spiritual awakening, which I think is good, but also would lead to a social awakening. We’re going to reverse this trend of isolation and scrolling social media that we’ve been doing so much for the last 15, 20 years,” the professor stated. The post Does the Data Show America Experiencing a Religious Revival? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Planned Parenthood facilities in Ohio have been affected by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4. While a federal lawsuit plays out when it comes to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act defunding the abortion provider for a year, Planned Parenthood continues to face troubles in the Buckeye State. Affiliates face termination of Ohio Medicaid provider agreements. Axios had a scoop on Friday morning with regards to Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio and Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio facing such terminations. “Late last month, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) sent letters to Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio (PPGOH) and Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region (PPSWO) informing that, beyond the reimbursement ban, they face termination of their Ohio Medicaid provider agreements,” Axios mentioned, also detailing how the affiliates “requested an administrative hearing to contest the decision” on Thursday. Dr. Michael New, a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, shared with The Daily Signal that “while the recently signed federal budget largely excludes Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds, Planned Parenthood still receives taxpayer dollars from state Medicaid programs.” He also mentioned that “it is easy to see why Planned Parenthood’s Ohio affiliates are contesting this decision,” given that “Planned Parenthood is very dependent upon taxpayer funds.” Ohio Right to Life meanwhile shared the Axios piece over on X as an “ALERT!!” The Daily Signal also reached out to the pro-life group for comment. ALERT!! Planned Parenthood plans to fight to stop the Ohio Department of Medicaid from terminating their provider agreements. https://t.co/dlGpWBdSZI— Ohio Right to Life (@ohiolife) October 24, 2025 A statement from Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio President and CEO Nan Whaley focused on politics. “We are disappointed but not surprised by this latest politically motivated attack on our ability to care for patients who rely on Medicaid. Anti-abortion politicians are once again using every tool at their disposal to block people from accessing essential, life-saving care at Planned Parenthood, indefinitely. This move is part of a broader, coordinated strategy to push reproductive health care out of reach,” Whaley said. “Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio has always complied with all applicable laws and regulations in providing high-quality care. There is no misconduct, no wrongdoing, only a political agenda trying to interfere with our patients’ ability to get the care they deserve.” Whaley’s statement concluded by further denouncing the move. “Let’s be clear: There is no legal basis for this action. This is about power and control, not patient health, or safety. We won’t back down, and we’ll fight for every person who counts on us,” she added. New is singing a different tune, however. “Planned Parenthood and their supporters will claim that Ohioans will lose access to health care. However, that is not the case. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Ohio has 201 federally qualified health centers in Ohio which accept Medicaid,” he added. “In contrast, there are only about 16 Planned Parenthood facilities in the state. Furthermore, these FQHCs are spread out throughout the state and serve rural areas. In contrast nearly every Planned Parenthood facility is based in a city or a college town.” Although Ohio is an increasingly red state, voters in 2023 approved Issue 1, a ballot initiative enshrining a so-called right to abortion in the state constitution. As for how Planned Parenthood is expected to do with Medicaid, New noted it “is unlikely that Planned Parenthood will prevail in Ohio,” pointing to the example of other states. “As a matter of public policy, state Medicaid programs have latitude in deciding which health care facilities they will reimburse. Furthermore, it is doubtful that any subsequent litigation on the part of Planned Parenthood would be successful,” he reminded. The U.S. Supreme Court in Medina v. Planned Parenthood of the South Atlantic, as New brought up, found that South Carolina could exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. “The same precedent would almost certainly apply to Ohio’s decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program,” he added. Although a controversial judge ruled against defunding Planned Parenthood, that provision was allowed to move forward in September. As Axios previewed, oral arguments for Planned Parenthood’s federal lawsuit on funding are scheduled for Nov. 12 in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Defunding Planned Parenthood is a battle Congress has been grappling with for decades, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s provision has to be renewed or else expire. This termination notice isn’t quite affected in the same way. “Termination could mean further-reaching effects than the year ban, which would expire if not renewed by Congress in the next budget cycle,” Axios mentioned. The abortion industry received further bad news from the Trump administration. As Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell covered exclusively on Friday, The Daily Signal has learned that the administration is “moving to roll back a Biden-era regulation that allows taxpayer dollars to pay for unaccompanied illegal alien children in the U.S. to travel to get abortions.” The post More Bad News Comes for Planned Parenthood in Ohio appeared first on The Daily Signal.

By James Hollywood Macecari The wind in your face, the rumble of the engine, the sense of unbridled freedom—these are the hallmarks of motorcycling that draw millions of Americans to the open road each year. Yet, this exhilarating pursuit comes with profound risks. Motorcycles account for just 3% of registered vehicles in the U.S. but represent 14% of traffic fatalities, with head injuries causing nearly 40% of those deaths. In 2023, a staggering 6,335 motorcyclists lost their lives, the highest toll since comprehensive records began, underscoring the urgent need for safety measures like helmet laws. At the epicenter of this debate are motorcycle helmet laws, which dictate whether riders must shield their heads with DOT-approved gear. These regulations aren’t uniform; they form a fragmented mosaic across the 50 states, reflecting deep-seated tensions between public safety imperatives and individual liberties. Proponents argue that helmets are a simple, proven intervention that saves lives and cuts healthcare costs. Detractors decry them as nanny-state overreach, infringing on the very essence of why people ride: autonomy and thrill. This article traces the history of these laws from their federally spurred origins in the 1960s to the present day, examines the current state-by-state landscape—focusing on requirements for riders over 18—and dissects the multifaceted arguments for and against mandates. Drawing on data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and other authoritative sources, we’ll explore how these policies have evolved amid shifting cultural attitudes, technological advancements in helmet design, and persistent fatality trends. As motorcycle registrations climb toward 9 million in 2025, understanding this debate is more critical than ever, not just for riders but for policymakers grappling with balancing protection and freedom. The Historical Evolution of Motorcycle Helmet Laws The roots of U.S. motorcycle helmet laws lie in a post-World War II boom in motorcycling, when affordable bikes like the Harley-Davidson and Indian models symbolized rebellion and mobility. In the 1950s, riders often opted for open-faced or novelty helmets—think leather caps or skullcaps—that offered little real protection. Fatalities mounted as highways expanded and speeds increased, but it took a national crisis to spur action. The turning point arrived with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, enacted under President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of his Great Society initiatives. This groundbreaking legislation created the NHTSA and authorized federal standards for vehicle safety, including motorcycles. Crucially, it linked highway funding to states’ adoption of helmet laws, incentivizing rapid compliance. In 1965, zero states required helmets; by 1967, 22 had universal mandates covering all riders. The momentum built: 14 more states followed by 1968, and by 1975, 47 states plus the District of Columbia enforced them, with California as the stubborn outlier. Early evidence validated the push. NHTSA studies from the late 1960s showed helmet use nearing 100% in compliant states, correlating with a 20-30% drop in head-related fatalities. Helmets weren’t just symbolic; they addressed a glaring vulnerability. A 1968 NHTSA report estimated that bareheaded riders faced triple the risk of severe brain trauma. This era mirrored broader safety reforms—seatbelts, airbags, drunk-driving laws—embodying a paternalistic ethos: government as guardian against self-inflicted harm. But resistance simmered. Motorcycle clubs, veterans’ groups, and libertarian voices, amplified by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), viewed helmets as emasculating and impractical. “Freedom of the road” became a rallying cry, with protests in states like Texas and Florida decrying “head huggers.” The backlash peaked in 1974 when Congress, swayed by states’ rights advocates and amid economic pressures, repealed the federal funding penalty via the Highway Safety Act amendments. Repeals cascaded: 26 states dismantled universal laws by 1980, often retaining partial requirements for minors. The 1980s brought ebbs and flows. High-profile tragedies, like the 1982 death of actor Vic Morrow in a helicopter crash (tangentially linked to moto-safety discussions), refocused attention. Federal grants under the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) rewarded high-compliance states, nudging helmet use up to 60% nationally by 1994. Yet, cultural pushback persisted; the 1992 film Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man glamorized helmetless riding, influencing public perception. The 1990s and 2000s saw data-driven reversals. California’s 1992 reinstatement of universal laws slashed fatalities by 38% within a year, per a University of California study. Nationally, however, repeals continued; by 2000, only 26 states clung to universal mandates. The 2005 reintroduction of federal incentives under the SAFE-TEA-LU Act briefly stabilized numbers, but economic downturns and Tea Party-era deregulation fervor eroded gains. Into the 2010s and beyond, the narrative shifted toward evidence. IIHS analyses linked repeals to 1,500 excess deaths between 1994 and 2002 alone. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated risks, with a 2021 surge in recreational riding leading to 5,932 deaths—up 12% from 2019. By 2023, NHTSA reported helmets averted 1,870 fatalities that year. As of 2025, amid electric motorcycle adoption and aging rider demographics (average age now 50), advocacy groups like the Governors Highway Safety Association push for uniformity, citing climate-driven road hazards. This 60-year saga reveals a pendulum swing: from federal fiat to state sovereignty, safety science to personal ethos. Helmets evolved too—from rigid fiberglass to lightweight carbon-fiber with MIPS tech reducing rotational forces by 40%. Yet, the core debate endures: Do laws coerce compliance, or do they merely nudge toward survival? The Current Landscape: State Regulations and Focus on Riders Over 18 In 2025, motorcycle helmet laws remain a state prerogative, creating a checkerboard of rules that confound interstate riders. No federal mandate exists, leaving enforcement to local statutes with fines from $25 in lenient areas to $1,000 plus jail time in strict ones. Broadly, laws divide into universal (all riders), partial (age- or condition-based), and none. Universal laws, requiring helmets for every rider and passenger regardless of age, prevail in 19 states plus the District of Columbia—covering about 40% of the U.S. population and yielding 94% compliance rates. These jurisdictions include Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire—no, wait, New Hampshire has none. Correction: Key universal states are Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Wait, that’s 22? Sources vary slightly due to recent tweaks, but consensus pins at 19 core states plus DC: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. For riders over 18, these universal laws are unequivocal: no exceptions. Even experienced adults must comply, with “eye protection” addendums in some (e.g., California’s Vehicle Code 27803 mandates shatterproof eyewear if helmetless, but helmets are non-negotiable). Compliance is high—NHTSA’s 2023 survey clocked 94% usage here—thanks to visible enforcement and cultural normalization. Partial laws govern 28 states, typically exempting adults over 18 (or 21) while protecting minors. For example, 18 states mandate helmets for under-18s: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky (under 21 unless trained), Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Nine others vary: Florida and Pennsylvania under 21; Illinois has none, but wait—Illinois is no-law. In partial states, over-18 riders can forgo helmets if they meet criteria like minimum insurance ($10,000 medical in Pennsylvania) or safety courses (e.g., Kentucky’s waiver). Helmet use dips to 72% here, per IIHS 2024 data, correlating with 20% higher head injury rates. Three states—Iowa, Illinois, and New Hampshire—eschew all mandates, aligning with “live free” philosophies. New Hampshire’s constitution even nods to personal responsibility. In these, usage hovers at 60%, and fatalities per capita exceed universal states by 33%.This patchwork burdens riders: A Californian crossing to Oregon stays covered, but dipping into Idaho risks a ticket. Enforcement varies—rural patrols focus on speed, urban ones on compliance. Post-2020, electric bikes and scooters challenge definitions, with some states (e.g., Texas) classifying low-speed EVs as helmet-exempt. Trends show stasis with glimmers of change. A 2025 CDC report estimates universal laws prevent 1,094 deaths annually, pressuring partial states. Yet, AMA lobbying stalls expansions, citing overregulation. With 8.9 million registered bikes in 2024 (up 5%), and demographics skewing older (65% over 30), the over-18 focus sharpens: Why mandate for adults who “know better”? Data counters: 70% of fatalities involve riders over 25, many unhelmeted. Arguments in Favor of Mandatory Helmet Laws Advocates, led by NHTSA, IIHS, and groups like Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, marshal overwhelming evidence: Helmets save lives without curbing freedom’s joy. NHTSA’s 2024 analysis affirms helmets reduce operator death risk by 37% and passenger by 41%, while slashing head injuries by 69%. In crashes, unhelmeted riders face 4.9 times the brain trauma odds. A 2025 IIHS study of 10,000 crashes found universal-law states had 29% fewer fatalities per mile ridden. Economically, benefits cascade. The CDC pegs lifetime costs of a head-injured rider at $1.2 million in medical bills, lost wages, and productivity—multiplied by 2,000 preventable cases yearly. Universal laws cut insurance premiums 4-7% statewide, as fewer claims flow through. Public health wins too: Reduced ER visits ease hospital burdens, especially post-pandemic. Mandates boost compliance organically. In repeal states like Texas (2017 partial shift), usage fell 35%, spiking deaths 25%. Voluntary efforts—awareness campaigns, free helmets—yield only 60% adoption; laws push 90%+. For over-18s, who comprise 85% of riders, exemptions ignore impulsivity: Alcohol factors in 40% of fatalities, impairing judgment. Critics of “nanny state” rhetoric note parallels to seatbelts (now 91% used) or vaccines—collective good from individual action. Helmets don’t hinder visibility or hearing; modern designs enhance both with vents and Bluetooth. Ultimately, proponents argue: Freedom includes surviving to ride another day. Arguments Against Mandatory Helmet Laws Opponents, spearheaded by the AMA and libertarians, frame helmets as a slippery slope to overregulation, eroding the motorcycle’s rebellious spirit. “Laws don’t prevent crashes—they punish victims,” asserts AMA’s 2025 position paper. Indeed, helmets address consequences, not causes like distracted driving (28% of crashes) or poor infrastructure. NHTSA concedes: Helmets avert only head impacts; ejections, multi-vehicle wrecks persist. Personal autonomy reigns supreme. Riders over 18—competent adults—should weigh risks themselves. Partial laws respect maturity, mandating for kids while freeing elders. Universal edicts infantilize, per a 2023 RevZilla survey where 62% of riders felt “demeaned” by mandates. Fines ($100 average) disproportionately hit low-income hobbyists, exacerbating inequities. Myths persist: Some claim helmets cause neck snaps or fog vision, though debunked—IIHS tests show no added injury risk, and anti-fog coatings abound. Repeals haven’t doomed states; Kentucky’s 2017 partial law saw usage hold at 75%, with fatalities stable. Broader deterrence: Strict laws may suppress riding, reducing exposure. A 2024 Australian study (mirroring U.S. trends) linked mandates to 8% ridership drops. Insurance hikes? Marginal, say foes—risky behaviors like speeding matter more. Public costs? Riders bear crash expenses via no-fault systems. Ethically, bodily sovereignty trumps societal savings; as philosopher John Stuart Mill argued, harm to self shouldn’t invite coercion unless it burdens others (e.g., via taxes). For over-18s, data shows experience mitigates risks: Veterans over 40 have 50% lower crash rates, helmeted or not. In sum, anti-mandate voices champion education over edict—safety courses, tech like ABS brakes—preserving the road’s poetry. Conclusion Motorcycle helmet laws embody America’s enduring tug-of-war: collective welfare versus rugged individualism. From 1966’s federal spark to 2025’s 19 universal strongholds, they’ve saved tens of thousands while fueling cultural clashes. For over-18 riders, the choice—mandated in universal states, optional elsewhere—hinges on whether safety is a right or responsibility. As EVs electrify the scene and fatalities linger high, hybrid approaches beckon: Incentives for voluntary use, tech-integrated helmets, crash-prevention mandates. Riders, policymakers, and advocates must navigate this road together, ensuring the thrill endures without needless tragedy. References Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). “Motorcycle helmet use laws.” https://www.iihs.org/topics/motorcycles/motorcycle-helmet-laws-table (Accessed October 2025). Motorcycles Data. “Motorcycle Helmet Laws by State.” https://www.motorcyclesdata.com/2025/07/17/motorcycle-helmet-laws-by-state/ (July 17, 2025).Law Tigers. “What States Have Motorcycle Helmet Laws?” https://lawtigers.com/resources/helmet-laws/ (Accessed October 2025). Consumer Shield. “Motorcycle Helmet Laws By State: U.S. Map (October 2025).” https://www.consumershield.com/injuries-accidents/motorcycle-accidents/helmet-laws (October 8, 2025).Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “MV PICCS Intervention: Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws.” https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/calculator/mchelmet.html (July 28, 2025). North American Community Hub. “Motorcycle Helmet Laws by State 2025 – Universal vs Partial Rules.” https://northamericancommunityhub.com/motorcycle-helmet-laws-by-state/ (September 22, 2025). American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). “Voluntary Helmet Use.” https://americanmotorcyclist.com/rights/ama-board-position-statements/voluntary-helmet-use/ (Accessed October 2025).Edgar Snyder & Associates. “Motorcycle Helmet Laws – By State.” https://www.edgarsnyder.com/resources/motorcycle-helmet-laws-by-state (Accessed October 2025). National Institutes of Health (NIH). “Evaluation of the Use and Reasons for Not Using a Helmet by Motorcyclists.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4276706/ (Accessed October 2025). RevZilla. “The truth behind motorcycle helmet laws.” https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/the-truth-behind-motorcycle-helmet-laws (March 3, 2023). Dressie Law. “Understanding Motorcycle Helmet Law Controversy.” https://www.dressielaw.com/blog/why-are-helmets-so-controversial-in-the-motorcycle-community/ (April 28, 2021). Claggett Law. “How Necessary Are Motorcycle Helmets? Really Necessary.” https://www.claggettlaw.com/2022/03/09/how-necessary-are-motorcycle-helmets-really-necessary/ (March 9, 2022). Joye Law Firm. “Reasons Why You Should Wear a Helmet While Riding a Motorcycle.” https://www.joyelawfirm.com/blog/reasons-important-wear-motorcycle-helmet/ (Accessed October 2025). Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “Motorcycle Helmets.” https://saferoads.org/issues/motorcycle-helmets/ (Accessed October 2025). Skilled Motorcyclist Association. “Helmet Law Effectiveness.” https://smarter-usa.org/research/helmets-laws/helmet-law-effectiveness/ (Accessed October 2025).IIHS. “Motorcycles.” https://www.iihs.org/topics/motorcycles (Accessed October 2025). National Safety Council. “Motorcycle Helmets – Injury Facts.” https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protection/motorcycle-helmets/ (Accessed October 2025). Market.us News. “Motorcycle Helmet Statistics and Facts (2025).” https://www.news.market.us/motorcycle-helmet-statistics/ (Accessed October 2025). NHTSA. “Motorcycle Safety: Helmets, Motorists, Road Awareness.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/motorcycles (Accessed October 2025). Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “Motorcycle Rider Safety [PDF].” https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Motorcycle-Helmet-Fact-Sheet-2024-10-22-24-FINAL.pdf (2024).IIHS. “Fatality Facts 2023: Motorcycles and ATVs.” https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/motorcycles-and-atvs (Accessed October 2025).DJC Law. “Key Motorcycle Accident Statistics 2024 Updated.” https://teamjustice.com/key-motorcycle-accident-statistics/ (February 10, 2020). Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “New IIHS Research Affirms Importance of All-Rider Motorcycle Helmet Laws.” https://saferoads.org/2024-iihs-motorcycle-helmets/ (October 16, 2024). NHTSA. “2025 National Motorcycle Safety Resource Guide [PDF].” https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/sites/tsm.gov/files/2025-04/motorcycle-resource-guide-en-es-2025-tag.pdf (2025).CDC. “Motorcycle Injury Prevention | Health Impact in 5 Years.” https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/policy/hi5/motorcycleinjury/index.html (Accessed October 2025). North American Community Hub. “Motorcycle Helmet Laws by State 2025.” https://northamericancommunityhub.com/motorcycle-helmet-laws-by-state/ (September 22, 2025). CDC. “MV PICCS Intervention: Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws.” https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/calculator/mchelmet.html (July 28, 2025). Motorcycle Law Group. “The Evolution Of Motorcycle Helmet Laws.” https://motorcyclelawgroup.com/articles/the-evolution-of-motorcycle-helmet-laws/ (Accessed October 2025). RevZilla. “The truth behind motorcycle helmet laws.” https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/the-truth-behind-motorcycle-helmet-laws (March 3, 2023).NIH. “Motorcycle Helmet Laws in the United States From 1990 to 2005.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2661439/ (Accessed October 2025). American Journal of Public Health. “Paternalism & Its Discontents: Motorcycle Helmet Laws, Libertarian Values, and Public Policy.” https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.083204 (October 10, 2011). CDC. “MV PICCS Intervention: Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws.” https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/calculator/mchelmet.html (July 28, 2025). Davis Law Firm. “Motorcycle Helmet Laws – The 50 Year Debate.” https://jeffdavislawfirm.com/motorcycle-helmet-laws/ (July 11, 2016).Wikipedia. “Motorcycle helmet.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_helmet (Accessed October 2025). Edwards & Patterson Law. “The Evolution of Motorcycle Safety.” https://www.edwardspattersonlaw.com/blog/the-evolution-of-motorcycle-safety/ (February 28, 2025). ScienceDirect. “The antecedents of mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847818300226 (Accessed October 2025).

Square Hammer opened Ghost’s 2016’s Popestar EP and cracked US radio for the Swedish occultists

A federal judge overturned a former Biden-era rule that protected transgender healthcare under anti-discrimination measures.