One board member's question casts shadow on VHA interviews

Frontiersman editorial board

For all the silver linings the Valley Hospital Association has provided over the years, it seems one cloud persists in hanging over the association board. The question of abortion rights has cast an ever-present shadow over VHA for several years -- sometimes over the very heart of the association's activities, and sometimes off in the periphery.

Over the past year, the biggest news about the hospital has been the joint venture with Triad Hospitals Inc., and the construction of a new hospital in the Valley. The history of battles over whether or not hospital staff would perform abortions seemed distant and not likely to resurface.

However the board recently conducted interviews for new board members and for scholarship candidates. During those interviews at least one board member asked candidates, "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?" The question sent shock waves through the board, and the dust has not yet settled. Board President Clyde Boyer, who was not present during those interviews, expressed disappointment that the question was asked, and he said the abortion question does not speak to a person's ability to serve on the board. Karen Vosburgh, who asked the question, said she believes the majority of the board supports her decision to ask the question. She said, "By asking it, we find out whether or not [board applicants] would be willing to join the fight against abortion, which is the will of the community."

It seems Vosburgh and Boyer are not on the same page. Boyer said board members should be selected upon their strengths, and their potential contribution to board activities. The Valley Hospital Association Board's primary function now is to manage and disperse its share of the joint venture's assets. The association board is not charged with setting or upholding hospital policy, and the board is certainly not charged with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, nor any other federal, state or local laws.

Attorneys have so far been unable or unwilling to say whether the abortion question constitutes discrimination, but what other purpose could it possibly have? The purpose of the interviews is to select board members and award scholarships. All questions must be calculated into the board's decision. If a person is kept from serving on the board, or from winning a scholarship, based upon personal, moral or political views, what can that be other than discrimination? If Vosburgh is not on the same page as the board president in terms of the board's purpose, that must be addressed. If the majority of the board supports her discriminatory practices, the problem is a serious one that deserves intense public scrutiny.