The quote was accurate, and the context is valid. The whole idea is "Does the Presidential helo decision favor the older, more experienced helo with earlier lower safety standards, or the newer, less experienced one with those higher standards?"
The differences between the EH-101 and the S/H-92 are basically collapsed down to that statement (for the Presidential mission, where cost is quite secondary) since they have very similar payload, and the 92 even has a payload advantage at any meaningful range. The use of airbags and anti-lock brakes is specific to cars, the helo issues are much more esoteric and less meaningful to the general public.
Regarding anti-lock brakes, anyone who doesn't drive race cars is a fool if he decides not to have this feature. I can certainly agree that full belts obviates the need for airbags. In the full quote I also mention side door strengthening and collapsable steering columns, as well as crash tests for bumpers and head hazard.