“There is no evidence to suggest that children are better off with or without a father,’ — Laura Witjens, chief executive, National Gamete Donation Trust, UK

THOSE WONDERFUL BRITS ARE SAID TO BE leading the world in high-quality, affordable health care for women. As for the kids, well, perhaps not so much.

It was recently announced that Britain’s National Health Service would provide financial support ($330,000 so far) to help sponsor a fertility clinic for single women. In the UK, women will be able to visit the website (assuming it works) of the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT) to pick out their sperm donor. The list of more than 1,000 men will have pertinent data listed for each: age, race, height, education, special gifts, areas of interest, etc.

The service is intended primarily for single women, as well as same-sex couples. Apparently it will be more convenient and less risky than going to a pub. Such is progress!

Fertilization clinics exist in England, but average fees for services are about $1,350. Now with the full blessing and backing of the NHS — and British taxes — this will be reduced by more than half, to $588. Such a bargain!

One wonders if the cancer patients who have been denied expensive medications will be pleased to know that their pounds have been used so Heather can have two mommies.

When we consider the number of children raised in fatherless homes, both abroad and here at home (estimated at 30 percent of all children by a 2009 U.S. Census report), we must ask: Should governments supply financing to this rapidly increasing trend? Or is the sounder course of action, for the good of the children, to discourage this trend by encouraging fewer fatherless births?

Defending the NHS action is Laura Witjens, whose quoted statement above is simply false. Domestically, fatherless homes account for:

• 63 percent of youth suicides — five times the average;

• 85 percent of all children who show behavior disorders — 20 times the average;

• 71 percent of all high school dropouts — 9 times the average;

• 85 percent of all youth in prison — 20 times the average. 

Moreover, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 71 percent of pregnant teenagers lack a father. In his book “The Garbage Collector” Dr. Daniel Amneus of Cal State-Los Angeles reported very similar statistics confirming the grim prognosis for children raised in fatherless families.

All this of course does not mean all fatherless children are destined for a life of crime, misery and poverty. Indeed, the last two Democratic presidents (not to mention many other notables) did not have biological fathers directly involved in their upbringing.

Yet it is indisputably clear that the probability for success is increased dramatically when a child does have a father who is actively involved in their nurturing.

In 2009, President Obama addressed the issue in Parade Magazine:

“In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence — both in my life and in the lives of others, I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.”

As our nation moves toward a single-payer system, study of other systems like Britain’s NHS will increase. The Brits will be touted as setting the standard for coverage and will be emulated nationally.

In that country, we see that many women have made a decision to have a child without an involved father, for a number of legitimate reasons. There are also same-sex relationships (25 percent of the NGDT’s customers) where a male role model is simply not a part of the equation.

In the case of voluntarily entering into motherhood, knowing (or preferring) that a man not be involved is of course a very personal decision. Such decisions should be made by the individual or her life partner. They also should be fully aware of the statistics mentioned so as to endeavor, individually or together, to prevent detrimental impacts to their child.

What we need to ask, and it bears repeating: Is it the responsibility of the government to encourage fatherless children through financial support?

In the U.S., fertilization coverage by state-sponsored insurance currently varies, as stated by MediCoverage:

“Approximately 11 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 45 are afflicted with fertility issues, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fifteen states require that insurance companies either are required to or must offer fertility treatment in some plans.”

Indeed, when does “health service” cross the line from providing care to legitimate patients to promoting a choice with a high probability of a negative outcome for the child?

What the NHS has done is taken fertility issues to a new level by funding “designer babies.”

But as the former bishop of Rochester, England, Michael Nazir-Ali, said: “It is the welfare of the child that must come first and not the fact that people want a particular kind of baby. This is social experimentation. It’s one thing for a child not to have a mother or father through tragedy, but it is another to plan children to come into the world without a father.”

It was more than 20 years ago that the issue of fatherless children garnered widespread national attention in this country when Dan Quayle used Candace Bergen’s “Murphy Brown” character as an example of not doing what is right for a child.

Quayle was excoriated for the comment, but 10 years later Bergen admitted to the accuracy of the vice president’s comment when she said, “His speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did.”

Let’s hope sound reasoning will prevail when this issue crosses the pond. The government does not need to be involved in further social experimentation resulting in an abusive situation for a large percentage of these children.

Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.