Racial Targeting And Population Control
By: Mark Crutcher | President, Life Dynamics Incorporated
Carole Novielli | Researcher
Renee Hobbs | Production Assistant
Release Date: February, 2011
Table Of Contents
Abstract
In the summer of 2009, Life Dynamics released the documentary film, Maafa 21. Its basic contention is that terms like “population control” and “family planning” are code words for a genocidal effort aimed at minorities – primarily African-Americans.
Among the many revelations documented in this film is that, as far back as the mid 1900s, some well-known eugenicists were arguing that the most effective way they could advance their agenda would be to concentrate population control facilities within the targeted communities. Perhaps the most noted proponent of this concept was Gunnar Myrdal who discussed it in his 1944 book, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.
In Maafa 21, evidence is presented that Planned Parenthood and others within the abortion and family planning lobby took this approach when choosing locations for their facilities and that this practice continues to this day.
The film also cites a study conducted by three American university researchers into the criteria used to decide the placement of U.S. population control facilities. Their finding was that the primary consideration in making this determination is not poverty but the percentage of blacks in the area.
The initial response to this documentary from people defending these organizations was to claim that they focus their facilities on minority neighborhoods because that is where the need is.
Almost immediately, however, they saw that this argument was creating a problem for them. Simply put, it is incompatible with one of their other arguments.
For years, these people have consistently argued that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent unplanned pregnancies by making birth control chemicals, devices and information widely available. If that is true, in light of their concession that they have focused these things on the minority community, the obvious result should be that black women have the lowest pregnancy and abortion rates in the country.
But to the contrary, in contemporary America, the rate of pregnancy among black women is almost three times as high as it is for white women and, though they make up less than 13% of the female population, black women have about 37% of the abortions. In other words, the family planning lobby’s argument that they concentrate their facilities in minority communities because that is where the need is, cannot be reconciled with their long espoused claim about the connection between contraception, pregnancy and abortion.
Seeing that they had painted themselves into this corner, their options were to either abandon the assertion that contraception is the way to reduce abortion rates, or reverse field and start denying that their facilities are disproportionately placed into minority neighborhoods.
They chose the latter.
Virtually overnight, they went from claiming that they target minority communities with noble intentions to claiming that they don’t target them at all. Then, to support this revised strategy, they began quoting a new report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) showing that only one in 10 Planned Parenthood clinics is located in a minority community.
Next, the media began publishing articles citing these stats in which AGI was routinely characterized as an independent entity. This was obviously done to give the stats an aura of credibility. It was also done despite the fact that the American media is fully aware that AGI is not an independent agency but is, instead, the research arm of Planned Parenthood and receives funding from Planned Parenthood. In fact, Alan Guttmacher was once the president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society.
In this process, the media consistently quoted AGI’s stats at face value without questioning their accuracy or the methods by which they were derived.
The reality is, the research in AGI’s report had been manipulated to yield pre-determined results.
For example, only facilities that actually perform abortions were included. However, every Planned Parenthood facility in America either does abortions or refers for them, and in the chain of events that lead to an abortion each entity is equally responsible.
It should also be pointed out that, in Maafa 21, the charge is that the genocide in question is being carried out with both abortion and birth control. Given that every Planned Parenthood facility provides one or both, AGI had no legitimate rationale for excluding any of them from its data.
In a transparent effort to narrow the field even more, AGI also chose to only include facilities that perform over 400 abortions per year. Again, this was an arbitrary and inexplicable decision given that no commonly accepted principle or industry standard establishes that a facility doing 400 abortions is statistically relevant while one that does 399 is not.
To appreciate the deception being perpetrated here, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which 10 of the 12 Planned Parenthood facilities in a state are located in predominately black ZIP codes. Two of those 10 facilities perform fewer than 400 abortions per year each. The remaining eight do not do abortions but refer their clients to abortion clinics located outside these predominately black ZIP codes. The problem is that, according to the formula used in the AGI study, not one of these Planned Parenthood facilities would show up in their report as being located in the black community despite the reality that 83% of them were located there.
Clearly, AGI was “cooking the books.” They knew Planned Parenthood’s denial of racial targeting could not be sustained as long as certain large segments of their facilities were included in their statistics. So AGI cobbled together this absurd formula to make those facilities become statistically invisible.
Methodology
Historically, the population control movement’s eugenic efforts have been primarily focused on the African-American community and that was the underlying theme of Maafa 21. In our research, however, we have seen unmistakable evidence that the family planning establishment is also ratcheting up its efforts to deal with the Hispanic population.
For that reason, this report was expanded to include them as well. Our mission was to document whether the population control movement has targeted black and/or Hispanic communities by placing facilities in areas where those minority populations are disproportionately represented.
We began by creating a database of the ZIP codes for every Planned Parenthood facility in the United States. This list was generated from Planned Parenthood’s website. We then used United States Census Bureau figures to establish the percentage of black and Hispanic people residing within each of these ZIP codes as well as within each state.
The resulting data allowed us to calculate how often these ZIP codes contain a higher proportion of blacks and/or Hispanics than the state in which they are located. Of equal importance is that this data also gave us the size of those disparities. The results of those calculations are given in a chart found later in this report.
Within the American population control movement, Planned Parenthood is not the only player. Their efforts are augmented by hundreds of independent abortion clinics. These facilities are found nationwide and are generally affiliated with trade associations like the National Abortion Federation or the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.
For this report, a second database was created of these facilities with their locations being subjected to the same “racial targeting” evaluation as the Planned Parenthood locations. Those results are in a second chart. (Since some Planned Parenthood facilities are also members of the National Abortion Federation or the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, we took measures to make certain that these two charts were purged of duplicates.)
Accuracy
Any study of this nature includes several factors that can lead to errors. ZIP codes change; facilities close; new facilities open; facilities move to new locations; facilities change their names; some operate under multiple names and/or addresses, etcetera. It is also true that, in the highly unstable world of abortion clinics and population control facilities, these problems are even more pronounced.
Considering the high number of potential mistake- causing areas, we made certain that once our data was gathered and calculated, it was checked, rechecked and checked again.
One aspect of this study is that, due to the high volume of entries and calculations necessary to create these charts – approximately 3000 – it would take a lot of errors to significantly alter the overall results. Fortunately, the system we employed made sure that errors simply don’t exist in those numbers.
Another factor supporting the study’s accuracy is the fact that it was universal. It is common and accepted practice for those conducting this kind of research to examine a “representative sample” of the whole and then issue an analysis based on data extrapolated from that sample. We did not do that and, instead, included every facility in the country. This eliminated any claim that we used “selective inclusion or selective exclusion” to control the results.
It should also be noted that all of our raw data came from the United States Census Bureau and is, thus, insulated against bias. The only limitation this source presented is that there is a lag time between when the government takes a census and when that information is compiled, analyzed and released to the public. For that reason, the latest information available to us was from the 2000 census. Although we would have preferred newer data, as a practical matter, the racial makeup of ZIP codes where these facilities are located would not change enough from one census to the next to have any material impact on our results.
The bottom line is, if there are errors, correcting them would be as likely to reinforce our findings as refute them. Additionally, in either case, they would be neither numerous enough nor large enough to substantially alter the overall findings.