 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
IS THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY A PROMOTER OF THE SLIPPERY SLOPE? IF SO, IS IT OUT OF
IGNORANCE, APATHY, AND INDIFFERENCE OR INTENTIONAL?
WE PAY FOR ABORTION
It wasn’t until I read an article published in "Our Sunday Visitor" that I
realized these were not laws. According to Patrick Rooney, Chief Executive
Officer of Golden Rule Insurance Company, "These are regulations set up by the
heads of insurance regulatory agencies in the state. State regulations are
extremely bullish in demanding abortion coverage because pro-abortion and
feminist movement people have put pressure on them to help finance abortion".
Since the spring of 1987, I have carefully reviewed numerous health and
insurance publications for fear that we would quickly slide further down the
"Slippery Slope". The June 6, publication, "Healthweek" conducted an interview
with Dr. Colin Brewer, Convenor, Medical Committee, Voluntary Euthanasia
Society.THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICAN AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LWE INSURANCE CO. MASSACHUSETFS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY CO. GENERAL AMERICAN TIME INSURANCE COMPANY EQUITABLE LIFE MONY LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY MUTUAL MAXICARE (INDEPENDENCE HEALTH PLAN) SELECT CARE PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE CO. NEW YORK LIFE GREAT-WEST-LIFE HW: You’re drawing a line between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. But aren’t you already crossing the line when you actively take someone’s life, regardless of whether they request it or not? Brewer: The alleged difference between active and passive is only a difference in style. There is nothing different morally. You’re in effect killing someone by with holding (treatment). If you have a demented old grandmother (as a patient) and decide not to treat her when she develops pneumonia, most people would say you’re right. It’s simply a pretense to argue that there’s a difference between that and giving her an injection. If you will the end, you will the means. And pneumonia is a messy way of allowing someone to die. We regard some people as not worth keeping alive and others worth keeping alive. USAA, a major life insurance company, is also on that journey down the "Slippery Slope". In their December 1988 issue of AIDE, they actively promoted the "Living Will" and the organization, Concern for Dying. Concern for Dying is to the Euthanasia movement what National Organization for Woman (NOW) is to the abortion movement. Just review the founding principles of Concern for Dying.
CONCERN FOR DYING *
As you can see, the logic on life and death decisions of both Concern for Dying
and National Organization for Women are basically the same. As a result of
NOW’s efforts beginning in 1966, to promote the right of women to choose the
course of their own actions, to participate in decisions affecting their lives
when they are pregnant, and to have their wishes respected by the health care
system is that led to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Decision legalizing abortion
on demand. The bottom line is that both of these organizations want the right
to decide who shall live and who shall die.
"Founded on the principle that decisions about death and dying are uniquely personal. A growing recognition of the right of individuals to choose the course of their own treatment, to participate in decisions affecting their lives when they are near death, and to have their wishes respected by the health care system is what led to the creation of Concern for Dying in 1967." * Promotional Mailer 12/88 How did the "Living Will" originate? It was formulated in 1967 by the Euthanasia Education Council (now called Concern for Dying). The "Living Will" originated as a tool to promote acceptance of euthanasia. Because the public was not yet ready to accept the total concept of euthanasia, it was anticipated that such a document would gradually shape public opinion, thus leading to a recognition of the "right" to choose when, where, why and how to die. Is USAA truly supportive of euthanasia or are they ignorant of the real purpose behind the organization, Concern for Dying? Justas the National Organization for Women cleverly slipped into the insurance industry and pressured them to pay for abortions, the euthanasia people have done the same under the front "Concern for Dying". Their primary objective is to remove God as the one who gives and takes life while placing man and the state in charge. What we are describing is only the tip of the iceberg for the insurance industry’s involvement in euthanasia, if we don’t stop them now!! Derek Humphrey, Executive Director of the Pro-Euthanasia Hemlock Society in an interview with National Right to Life News in December 1986 said, "We have to go stage by stage, with the living will, with the power of attorney, with the withdrawal of this, we have to go stage by s said. Your side would call that the slippery slope. We would say, proceeding with caution; learning as we go along how to handle the very sensitive situation." For too many years we have al lowed the insurance industry to finance the killing of innocent and helpless preborn children. Now they are beginning to involve themselves in the promotion of living wills which is the first phase of legalizing euthanasia. If we don’t act now, what next? Living wills will be amended to allow killing by lethal injection. During a debate in May of 1989 over the Missouri Supreme Court decision, I challenged Ms. Val Osowski, Public Relations Director for Lansing Advocates for Choice, on the very dangerous situation that the 1973 (Roe Vs. Wade) created not only for the unborn child but anyone who is judged not capable of living a meaningful life. I confronted the serious consequences this places on the medical and legal professions. Not only, do we have legislation that allows physicians to kill children, but legislation that allows them to kill the elderly and the handicapped; which is already taking place in many of the major hospitals under the same freedom and Right to Choose that legalized abortion on demand. In my challenge to Ms. Osowski, I emphasized that the first right we are all granted whether we are an unborn child, a born child or are about to die is the Right to Life. Ms. Osowski responded as follows "What Mr. O’Dea fails to mention is Life with Dignity. I think what he is referring to is legislation such as the Living Will.... When he talks about the Living Will and the Durable Power of attorney, I think the intent of that legislation is to give people the Right to Choose." We are all aware of the aging population. It’s important for us to remember that for almost two decades people have accepted killing their young as a lifestyle and solution to solving a social and economic problems. Even Michigan State Treasurer, Robert A. Bowman, during the campaign to end state funding of abortions, said it would be cheaper for the state to pay for abortion than to care for these mothers and their children. Employers, insurance companies and social service agencies increasingly are using genetic screening to discriminate against applicants for jobs or services, according to speakers at a conference on science and journalism at Harvard Medical School. The insurance industry was most likely to use the information to deny benefits or pressure policyholders into certain care, according to Dr. Paul R. Billings, one of the speakers. Billings cited a case in which a pregnant woman discovered that her fetus had cystic fibrosis. Her insurance company said it wouldn’t cover prenatal care or insure the child when it was born. The woman felt pressure to have an abortion (Healthweek, Aug. 14, 1989). With health care costs skyrocketing, the state puffing a price tag on human life, and mothers killing their own children, isn’t the next step children killing their parents and/or the state killing the elderly when they become either a physical or economic burden? What are the alternatives? To counter the anti-life involvement of the Insurance Industry, the Pro-Life Marketing Group (PMG) has been established. You can be guaranteed that your insurance and investment dollars will perpetuate your values today and on into the future. The objectives of PMG are three fold:
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW) **
TO PROVIDE PMG CLIENTS WITH THE FINEST AND MOST COMPETITIVE INSURANCE,
FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND PERSONAL ADVICE."REPRODUCTION RIGHTS" "NOW affirms that these are issues of life and death for woman, not mere matters of choice. NOW supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control, to reproductive health and education. We oppose attempts to amend the Constitution and any legislation or regulations which would restrict these rights. Founded in 1966 NOW h grown to the largest women’s organization in the country." ** Promotional Mailer 4/86 TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE FOR ANY OF THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS TO GO TO INSURER’S THAT PAY FOR ABORTIONS. TO PROVIDE PRO-LIFE PEOPLE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE INSURER WHO IS NOW PAYING FOR ABORTIONS. TO CONTROL ESCALATING COSTS OF HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE. Now for the first time, we have an exciting opportunity which allows pro-life people to speak with their finances by placing their life, health, disability, long term care insurance dollars, or their investment dollars (real estate, IRA, pensions, annuity) through a company that represents only those companies that do not pay for abortion. Since the most urgent need is to offer a pro-life alternative for health insurance, PMG has selected a proven pro-life insurer, Golden Rule, to underwrite, administer and service PMG clients. Golden Rule clearly demonstrated their pro-life commitment by resisting a requirement of the Tennessee Insurance Department to have all policies in their state to cover "non-elective abortions." Golden Rule ran an ad stating "We object on moral grounds .... WE ARE WILLING TO HAVE OUR INSURANCE PAY $100,000 FOR MEDICAL CARE BUT NOT PAY $600.00 TO ABORT THE SAME CHILD." In addition to their dedication to moral principles, they are leaders in processing, servicing and underwriting a large volume of major medical policies. GOLDEN RULE IS THE LARGEST WRITER OF INDIVIDUAL MAJOR MEDICAL INSURANCE IN THE UNITED STATES. For more information on the impact of living wills, and on the insurance and financial services available from PMG, please call 1-800-LIFE-320 or write: MIKE O'DEA, PRESIDENT PRO-LIFE MARKETING GROUP, INC. 23207 LAHSER ROAD SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 |
|
|
| [Christus Medicus] [Declaration 2000] [News] [Major Criteria] [Memberships] [Article List] [Links] |
|
|
|
Contact Webmaster with comments or questions regarding this site. |