racial targeting and population control - - the pro

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. polulation 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.

Racial Targeting and Population Control

By Mark Crutcher | President, Life Dynamics Incorporated

Carole Novielli | Researcher

Renee Hobbs | Production Assistant

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 importantance 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.

2

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.

The Charts

The first chart identifies the locations of Planned

Parenthood population control facilities. Even

though Planned Parenthood operates the largest

chain of abortion clinics in the United States, it is not

the case that every facility included here does

abortions. However, among those that do not, every

one refers for abortion, schedules abortions, or

otherwise arranges abortions. In addition, each

facility provides contraceptive drugs and/or devices.

As stated earlier, the second chart is for independent

abortion clinics that are not affiliated with Planned

Parenthood. In both charts, every state’s name is

followed by their overall percentage of black and

Hispanic populations. The “ZIP” column contains

the ZIP codes in which population control facilities

are located in that state. If a ZIP code is listed

multiple times, it means there were that many

facilities in that ZIP code.

3

The “BLACK” column gives the percentage of

African-Americans who live in this ZIP code and the

“COMP” column compares this percentage against

the state’s overall percentage of African-Americans.

When the “COMP” column is blank, it means that

this ZIP code did not exceed the state’s percentage

of black population. The last two columns provide

the same data for the Hispanic population.

As an example of how these charts work, the state of

Florida shows to have a black population of 14.6%.

In that state, Planned Parenthood has a facility in ZIP

code 33617 which has a black population of 23.5%.

This means that this facility is located in a ZIP code

with an African-American population that is 187.6%

that of the state.

In reviewing this data, there are several things to

keep in mind. The first is that the issue is not

whether a ZIP code is predominately black or

Hispanic but whether it is disproportionately black or

Hispanic. Second, any infrequent or small gaps

between the percentage of minorities in a ZIP code

and the percentage of minorities in the

corresponding state can be dismissed as

“statistically meaningless.”

But when those gaps are common enough or large

enough that they cannot be rationally attributed to

random chance, they constitute a pattern that could

have only been created by design and intention.

The question then becomes: at what point does a

gap stop being insignificant and start being

significant? Given the subjective nature of that

question, the deciding principle has to be common

sense. If a ZIP code’s percentage of black or

Hispanic population is 102% of the state’s

percentage, no reasonable person would consider

that an indicator of racial targeting.

However, when a state has multiple population

control facilities in ZIP codes with minority

populations that exceed 125% of the state’s overall

minority population, common sense says that racial

targeting is the plausible explanation.

As the charts in this report will show, such a pattern

is readily identifiable in the locations of America’s

family planning and population control facilities. It

should also be pointed out that these patterns are

routinely considered indicative of racial targeting

when it comes to other issues.

For example, African-Americans suffer far more of

the health problems associated with tobacco use

than does the white population. Civil rights leaders

have long contended that this is a direct result of the

fact that large tobacco companies target a

disproportionate percentage of their advertising and

promotional efforts on the black community. In just

one of many examples of this, research conducted

relative to a lawsuit in Baltimore, Maryland,

documented that 76% of the billboards in black

neighborhoods featured tobacco advertising while

that number was only 20% in white neighborhoods.

A parallel situation has also been identified with

alcohol. The catastrophic social and health

problems associated with alcoholism are found in

the black community to a much higher extent than

they are in the white community. And again, black

leaders have spent years pointing out that a primary

cause of this is the fact that liquor merchandisers

place a disproportionate percentage of their retail

outlets in black neighborhoods. The visual evidence

of this can be seen, first hand, by driving through

predominately minority neighborhoods in almost any

decent-sized city in America.

It is also claimed that the alcohol content of some

beverages marketed in these areas is measurably

higher than the alcohol content of similar products

sold elsewhere, and that certain cheap high-alcohol-

content products are sold only in liquor stores and

convenience stores in black neighborhoods.

There are many other examples of this sort of racial

targeting. Moreover, the disastrous effects it has had

on the targeted communities are easy to see.

The encouraging thing is that, in recent years, some

of the corporations responsible for this have been

4

dragged into the public spotlight by the news media.

A few have even found themselves in lawsuits and

Congressional hearings.

The glaring exception is America’s family planning

industry. Despite having more potential to destroy

the minority community than these corporations,

they have been left free to push their eugenics

agenda without scrutiny.

As the following charts show, when it comes to racial

targeting, these people are not amateurs.

5

CHART 1 – PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOCATIONS

ZIP BLACK COMP COMPHISPANIC

ALABAMABlack Population 26.0%

Hispanic Population 1.7%


ALASKABlack Population 3.5%



ARIZONABlack Population 3.1%



ARIZONA [ continued ]


ARKANSASBlack Population 15.7%



CALIfORNIABlack Population 6.7%


NOTE: In this chart as well as the one that follows, some ZIP codes show a

percentage of minorities that exceeds 100%. This occured because a small

number of Hispanics identify themselves as both black and Hispanic and are,

therefore, counted twice by the Census Bureau. This phenomenon is rare

and was identified in fewer than 10 of the ZIP codes included in this study.

2.2%0.3%99669

222.8% 107.3%4.4%7.8%99701

3.4%0.8%99801

3.3%0.3%99835

257.1% 185.3%7.6%9.0%99508

19.1%1.7%85032

118.5%30.0%2.4%85204

112.9% 15.1%3.5%85224

13.5%1.6%85251

25.2%3.0%85281

12.1%2.8%85304

112.9% 19.8%3.5%85338

158.0% 248.2%62.8%4.9%85031

217.7%55.1%2.7%85364

153.8% 152.9%2.6%40.0%35205

109.2% 123.5%2.1%28.4%36609

5.3%0.3%86305

112.9% 128.0%32.4%3.5%85705

129.0% 19.3%4.0%85712

200.0% 254.4%62.1%6.2%85713

12.2%1.7%86001

440.1% 3.1%69.1%72204

128.1%4.1%4.1%72703

480.5% 204.9%66.4%32.2%90003

191.0% 179.6%58.2%12.8%90007

714.9% 136.4%44.2%47.9%90016

297.2%96.3%0.5%90022

188.2%61.0%2.8%90029

284.8%92.3%1.5%90033

284.8%92.3%1.5%90033

119.1%38.6%2.3%90041

171.6% 154.3%50.0%11.5%90260

ZIP BlacK coMP coMPHISPaNIc

calIforNIa [ continued ]


calIforNIa [ continued ]


coloradoBlack Population 3.8%


13.8%1.2%91320

181.4%58.8%6.0%91405

23.9%1.7%91506

220.6%71.5%0.8%91732

208.9% 180.5%58.5%14.0%91767

131.3% 102.4%33.2%8.8%91786

102.1%33.1%1.7%91801

186.4%60.4%4.5%91911

17.9%0.9%92008

17.9%3.8%92021

149.6%48.5%2.1%92025

153.7% 22.2%10.3%92101

225.3% 149.3%48.4%15.1%92105

13.0%5.5%92108

10.6%1.4%92109

10.6%1.4%92109

22.1%5.4%92111

432.8% 30.0%29.0%92114

162.6% 24.4%10.9%92115

11.1%5.3%92126

300.0%97.2%0.4%92236

9.4%0.8%92270

214.9% 137.3%44.5%14.4%92408

19.1%5.6%92506

307.4% 139.8%45.3%20.6%92553

127.1%41.2%1.1%92627

21.6%1.0%92683

13.7%1.1%92691

104.3%33.8%1.5%92705

228.3%74.0%1.7%92805

101.8%33.0%1.8%92866

19.9%1.5%93003

148.4%48.1%1.9%93101

168.6% 31.8%11.3%93301

11.3%1.3%93401

126.2%40.9%2.2%93454

164.8%53.4%2.8%93637

24.4%6.3%93710

150.9%48.9%4.5%93728

101.4% 125.3%40.6%6.8%93901

260.8%84.5%1.1%93927

225.3% 108.0%35.0%15.1%93955

17.2%2.0%94040

20.5%2.6%94086

142.2%46.1%4.2%94110

144.7% 22.1%9.7%94509

122.8%39.8%4.5%94520

125.3% 7.9%8.4%94530

238.8% 20.3%16.0%94533

31.5%0.6%94559

255.2% 104.6%33.9%17.1%94565

7.2%1.9%94583

12.3%4.2%90401

211.1%68.4%1.3%90602

17.3%3.1%90713

305.9% 133.9%43.3%20.5%90806

214.9% 113.8%36.9%14.4%91104

183.3%59.4%4.0%91303

377.6% 22.1%25.3%94590

7.7%1.4%94596

665.6% 22.6%44.6%94804

346.2% 109.5%35.5%23.2%94806

17.9%1.6%95060

196.9%63.8%0.7%95076

30.5%5.0%95121

20.5%4.1%95123

114.5%37.1%4.7%95126

165.4%53.6%3.6%95127

129.8% 179.0%58.0%8.7%95205

150.7% 23.8%10.1%95207

23.9%2.3%95336

101.4% 109.8%35.6%6.8%95348

19.8%3.6%95350

27.0%6.6%95376

8.8%1.2%95405

11.0%5.1%95422

5.4%0.9%95503

180.5% 16.7%12.1%95660

7.9%1.3%95661

183.5% 16.4%12.3%95687

109.5%35.5%1.2%95695

202.9% 19.7%13.6%95814

14.1%4.9%95816

177.6% 110.4%35.8%11.9%95820

10.6%1.0%95973

26.0%2.6%95991

5.7%1.0%96002

4.3%0.2%96093

3.1%0.4%96145

3.7%1.1%94941

157.7%51.1%1.6%95020

152.7%49.5%1.1%95023

6

15.0%1.0%80003

500.0% 16.9%19.0%80012

8.4%1.2%80129

4.8%0.9%80134

1481.5% 15.4%56.3%80207

173.6% 11.4%6.6%80218

250.0% 10.5%9.5%80224

15.6%0.9%80232

4.7%1.1%80302

3.8%1.3%80446

132.7%22.7%0.5%80501

10.8%1.3%80521

15.8%0.7%80634

3.1%0.1%80477

11.3%2.3%80907

139.4% 8.8%5.3%80917

178.3%30.5%1.4%81008

213.4%36.5%1.1%81050


colorado [ continued ]


coNNectIcutBlack Population 9.1%


7

Statistics for this ZIP code were not available.*

*


florIda [ continued ]


delawareBlack Population 19.2%



florIdaBlack Population 14.6%



georgIaBlack Population 28.7%



HawaIIBlack Population 1.8%



IdaHoBlack Population 0.4%



IllINoISBlack Population 15.1%


251.4%43.0%1.0%81101

8.6%0.1%81201

81303

11.3%0.2%81321

15.2%0.2%81601

6.5%8.4%06040

150.0%14.1%6.6%06052

3.7%5.6%06082

110.9% 142.5%13.4%10.1%06110

951.6% 9.3%86.6%06112

343.6%32.3%6.1%06226

2.6%1.6%06239

204.3% 209.5%19.7%18.6%06320

5.5%6.3%06360

235.1%22.1%6.0%06451

1.9%1.0%06475

3.5%1.1%06484

506.5% 119.1%11.2%46.1%06511

293.4% 344.6%32.4%26.7%06604

127.6%12.0%7.7%06708

242.8% 3.3%22.1%06790

224.4%21.1%7.0%06810

259.3% 267.0%25.1%23.6%06902

4.4%5.6%19711

431.7% 139.5%6.7%82.9%19801

148.4% 4.4%28.5%19901

2.2%5.9%19971

143.2% 4.7%20.9%32207

2.9%4.4%32250

250.0% 6.0%36.5%32304

160.9% 6.7%23.5%32601

539.7% 5.0%78.8%32805

120.8%20.3%5.0%32817

6.2%5.4%32960

183.3%30.8%9.8%33024

505.3%84.9%1.6%33145

385.6% 126.7%21.3%56.3%33161

122.6% 238.6%40.1%17.9%33176

151.3% 101.7%17.1%22.1%33409

5.1%1.2%33434

132.1%22.2%9.3%33463

187.6% 13.9%27.4%33617

5.0%2.8%33702

7.0%5.0%33803

% 4.2%26.9%33881

4.0%1.4%33919

7.8%0.7%34103

125.3% 401.1%67.4%18.3%34142

12.5%8.9%34203

15.1%10.5%34236

6.4%12.3%34994

101.8%5.4%10.3%30043

4.5%8.0%30062

265.8% 5.1%76.3%30303

302.4% 1.1%86.8%30901

172.1% 2.4%49.4%31405

113.8%8.2%0.2%96732

108.3%7.8%0.4%96740

3.7%1.3%96814

107.5%8.5%0.2%83301

125.0% 4.2%0.5%83703

4.0%0.6%60462

7.4%7.5%60504

7.4%2.1%60603

179.4% 3.9%27.1%60610

367.4%45.2%10.9%60622

627.8% 3.1%94.8%60628

647.6% 1.2%97.8%60636

184.2

ZIP BlacK coMPHISPaNIc

IllINoIS [ continued ]


Iowa [ continued ]

8


INdIaNaBlack Population 8.4%



IowaBlack Population 2.1%



KaNSaSBlack Population 5.7%



KeNtucKyBlack Population 7.3%



louISIaNaBlack Population 32.5%



MaINeBlack Population 0.5%


101.3% 1.3%15.3%62526

217.2% 1.2%32.8%62703

467.5% 217.8%26.8%70.6%60651

117.8% 169.1%20.8%17.8%60660

4.5%1.1%61350

1.2%2.0%61554

212.5% 4.9%32.1%61603

3.7%10.0%61701

106.6% 5.5%16.1%61820

1.5%14.5%62226

1.0%0.3%62401

1.4%0.4%46123

810.7% 1.0%68.1%46208

3.3%2.5%46227

235.7% 2.8%19.8%46229

3.4%7.5%46250

332.1% 114.2%4.0%27.9%46268

429.7% 1474.2%51.6%36.1%46312

110.7% 485.7%17.0%9.3%46324

229.7% 2.7%19.3%46360

3.1%1.2%46383

660.7% 211.4%7.4%55.5%46408

298.8% 268.5%9.4%25.1%46410

189.2% 402.8%14.1%15.9%46516

3.2%4.8%46545

208.5%7.3%1.1%46580

2.4%2.5%46804

1.3%6.5%47150

0.8%0.1%47170

1.6%2.0%47203

1.1%1.7%47250

102.8%3.6%0.8%47274

1.3%3.9%47304

1.7%7.2%47374

1.4%3.3%47403

1.1%0.5%47421

0.9%2.5%47711

190.4% 1.6%16.0%47807

182.8%6.4%2.2%47905

119.0% 2.1%2.5%50014

1.1%0.8%50023

0.8%0.9%50138

1.3%1.3%50208

442.8% 217.8%6.1%9.3%50311

142.8% 228.5%6.4%3.0%50315

142.8% 228.5%6.4%3.0%50315

1.8%1.7%50322

209.5% 103.5%2.9%4.4%50501

653.5%18.3%0.4%50588

1.0%1.5%50613

1.1%0.3%50801

175.0%4.9%0.9%51106

1.3%0.2%51301

200.0%5.6%1.3%51501

1.8%0.1%51566

1.9%1.4%52001

223.8% 103.5%2.9%4.7%52246

139.2%3.9%0.5%52353

138.0% 1.7%2.9%52402

214.2% 1.9%4.5%52601

190.4% 171.4%4.8%4.0%52627

161.9% 1.0%3.4%52632

109.5% 1.5%2.3%52641

2.4%1.5%52722

1.2%1.5%66211

971.9% 268.5%18.8%55.4%67214

2.6%0.8%67601

850.6% 1.5%62.1%40203

1.0%5.4%40475

434.2% 253.3%3.8%31.7%40508

156.9% 133.3%3.2%51.0%70115

138.7% 1.4%45.1%70806

120.0% 0.6%0.6%04005

157.1%1.1%0.5%04073

260.0% 171.4%1.2%1.3%04086

920.0% 400.0%2.8%4.6%04101

coMP


MIcHIgaN [ continued ]

9


MarylaNdBlack Population 27.9%



MaSSacHuSettSBlack Population 5.4%



MIcHIgaNBlack Population 14.2%




MINNeSotaBlack Population 3.5%



MISSISSIPPIBlack Population 36.3%



MISSourIBlack Population 11.2%


126.8% 2.7%35.4%21801

110.3% 2.7%30.8%20602

304.6%13.1%17.2%20879

113.2% 131.9%13.5%31.6%20910

3.0%24.9%21117

221.1% 1.9%61.7%21201

1.5%17.0%21234

3.0%18.2%21401

2.5%17.9%21601

118.6%5.1%10.2%21702

150.0% 1116.1%75.9%8.1%01107

220.5%15.0%3.6%01420

116.6% 227.9%15.5%6.3%01609

6.1%2.2%01752

4.4%1.3%01757

3.7%4.8%02144

105.8%7.2%3.7%02215

1.0%1.5%48093

2.5%7.3%48103

109.0%3.6%5.2%48104

1.0%0.4%48114

1.9%0.7%48150

207.7% 2.5%29.5%48198

528.8% 1.9%75.1%48201

2.3%2.9%48509

129.5% 2.1%18.4%48532

236.3%7.8%7.2%48604

3.0%6.0%48823

124.2%4.1%13.7%48846

2.3%0.2%48867

324.2%10.7%13.3%48912

2.6%13.5%49006

124.2%4.1%7.4%49015

402.1% 2.6%57.1%49022

2.9%4.5%49036

260.6%8.6%0.9%49091

2.2%7.0%49093

3.1%6.3%49202

1.5%6.5%49307

161.2% 166.6%5.5%22.9%49442

156.3% 463.6%15.3%22.2%49503

49519

1.6%0.3%49686*

1.0%0.2%49770

0.7%2.4%49855

137.9%4.0%1.3%55060

1.2%1.2%55066

2.0%2.8%55113

131.4% 165.5%4.8%4.6%55116

2.0%2.0%55124

2.2%2.7%55125

151.4% 106.8%3.1%5.3%55344

797.1% 537.9%15.6%27.9%55404

460.0% 534.4%15.5%16.1%55408

254.2% 1.5%8.9%55445

0.6%0.2%55744

0.8%0.4%55792

1.1%1.5%55811

2.3%2.5%55901

2.0%1.6%56001

289.6%8.4%0.3%56007

2.7%0.4%56031

465.5%13.5%0.8%56201

102.8% 1.5%3.6%56304

0.6%0.2%56308

0.8%0.4%56401

144.8%4.2%0.7%56560

0.9%0.4%56601

1.3%0.2%56701

136.6% 1.3%49.6%39401

387.5% 1.2%43.4%63033

109.5%2.3%3.5%63088

400.0% 1.9%44.8%63108

400.0% 1.9%44.8%63108

470.5% 176.1%3.7%52.7%63118

1.5%2.4%63376

299.1% 204.7%4.3%33.5%64030

190.4%4.0%2.7%64050

104.7%2.2%5.1%64093

499.1% 161.9%3.4%55.9%64110


MoNtaNaBlack Population 0.3%



MISSourI [ continued ]

10


NeBraSKaBlack Population 4.0%



NevadaBlack Population 6.8%



New HaMPSHIreBlack Population 0.7%



New jerSeyBlack Population 13.6%



New MexIcoBlack Population 1.9%



New yorKBlack Population 15.9%


180.9%3.8%1.9%64119

109.5%2.3%2.6%64801

1.2%0.1%65049

1.5%6.7%65109

2.0%10.3%65203

1.4%1.9%65401

109.5%2.3%3.1%65807

115.0%2.3%0.3%59102

133.3% 130.0%2.6%0.4%59105

1.1%0.1%59254

1.1%0.1%59254

1.0%0.1%59255

233.3% 150.0%3.0%0.7%59323

1.3%0.1%59327

333.3% 135.0%2.7%1.0%59401

1.2%0.1%59422

0.6%0.2%59442

1.6%0.2%59601

%0.3%59802 1.8

185.0% 2.5%7.4%68134

2.7%1.2%68137

1.8%1.2%68506

3.4%2.8%68510

392.6% 17.6%26.7%89032

110.2% 192.8%38.0%7.5%89102

18.9%6.4%89121

170.5%33.6%2.5%89502

9.9%1.8%89503

128.5% 111.7%1.9%0.9%03038

271.4% 164.7%2.8%1.9%03104

0.8%0.4%03431

0.5%0.3%03743

157.1% 152.9%2.6%1.1%03784

0.9%0.5%03833

668.3% 4.1%90.9%07018

319.8% 5.7%43.5%07042

254.4% 224.8%29.9%34.6%07060

481.6% 171.4%22.8%65.5%07102

264.6%35.2%5.6%07105

245.5% 334.5%44.5%33.4%07201

5.7%1.6%07442

300.7% 352.6%46.9%40.9%07505

286.7% 163.9%21.8%39.0%07631

1.9%0.5%07702

9.9%6.9%07728

5.8%1.1%07730

2.5%1.6%07860

103.0%13.7%10.4%07960

3.9%1.7%08031

325.0% 187.2%24.9%44.2%08401

171.3% 6.1%23.3%08010

513.2% 198.4%26.4%69.8%08103

383.0% 247.3%32.9%52.1%08608

130.1% 4.8%17.7%08628

2.3%1.3%08690

3.7%1.3%08822

5.4%0.5%08835

509.0%67.7%9.7%08861

3.7%2.2%08865

4.4%1.5%08884

169.1% 293.2%39.0%23.0%08901

180.8% 194.7%25.9%24.6%07601

231.5% 108.0%45.5%4.4%87108

231.5% 108.0%45.5%4.4%87108

147.3% 27.5%2.8%87112

136.8% 28.2%2.6%87124

18.8%0.8%87401

124.7%52.5%0.7%87505

7.5%2.9%10012

150.3% 121.1%18.3%23.9%10301

289.9% 364.2%55.0%46.1%10451

7.9%2.1%10509

435.8% 11.6%69.3%10550

204.4% 12.6%32.5%10607

179.8% 227.1%34.3%28.6%10701

174.2% 184.1%27.8%27.7%10801

7.1%6.1%10924

130.4%19.7%11.9%10940

210.0% 11.4%33.4%10977

130.1% 14.4%20.7%11201

ZiP BLaCk CoMP CoMPhiSPaniC

new York [ continued ]

11


north CaroLinaBlack Population 21.6%



ohioBlack Population 11.5%


north dakotaBlack Population 0.6%

Hispanic Population

[ There are no Planned Parenthood facilities in this state. ]

1.2%

1.7%1.5%12065

3.1%4.7%12095

3.6%9.7%12180

301.8% 6.7%48.0%12206

271.6% 13.2%43.2%12307

5.1%9.3%12401

4.9%12.1%12534

135.8% 160.2%24.2%21.6%12550

167.2% 8.6%26.6%12601

127.0% 111.9%16.9%20.2%12701

1.4%1.3%12801

0.5%0.4%12832

1.7%2.6%12866

0.4%0.5%12883

1.7%1.9%12901

107.5% 10.3%17.1%12953

0.9%0.6%12983

138.9% 4.4%22.1%13210

1.2%1.0%13350

0.7%0.5%13367

0.8%0.7%13421

3.9%6.1%13440

3.8%8.1%13502

3.6%5.2%13601

1.3%2.5%13617

4.4%6.9%13669

1.0%1.0%13815

3.2%4.0%13820

1.5%0.8%13838

1.1%0.4%13856

2.1%4.9%13901

1.9%4.1%14020

1.0%0.4%14120

235.8% 2.8%37.5%14214

0.8%0.5%14224

122.0% 2.7%19.4%14301

1.0%2.4%14304

1.1%1.0%14424

371.6% 209.9%31.7%59.1%14605

2.5%3.1%14626

0.7%2.4%14830

1.1%1.7%14843

3.9%4.6%14850

0.7%0.7%14891

105.0% 3.9%16.7%14901

3.4%0.3%11795

128.3% 9.0%20.4%11901

5.0%1.5%11930

11.0%1.6%12010

2.2%1.7%12043

128.4%19.4%6.2%11542

320.1% 205.2%31.0%50.9%11550

4.8%6.4%11743

4.5%4.5%11758

14.0%5.1%11772

3.4%0.7%11787

174.4%8.2%17.5%27103

1.4%6.7%27408

3.3%9.2%27514

178.7%8.4%21.5%27603

240.7% 104.2%4.9%52.0%27704

184.2% 268.0%12.6%39.8%28205

172.2% 148.9%7.0%37.2%28303

238.8% 2.7%51.6%28401

207.4% 2.5%44.8%28801

1.0%3.4%43015

0.7%1.8%43113

181.7% 147.3%2.8%20.9%43201

212.1% 173.6%3.3%24.4%43213

113.9% 115.7%2.2%13.1%43222

142.1%2.7%7.1%43528

345.2% 563.1%10.7%39.7%43604

166.0% 884.2%16.8%19.1%44052

687.8% 226.3%4.3%79.1%44103

1036.8%19.7%7.0%44109

1.2%0.4%44116

0.7%6.1%44139

337.3% 1.3%38.8%44146

0.9%6.0%44240

0.9%1.6%44256

0.7%3.2%44266

363.4% 1.9%41.8%44302

0.6%0.9%44410

540.0% 331.5%6.3%62.1%44507

0.8%2.5%44691

0.9%5.4%44709

0.8%0.2%44833

1.2%5.7%44906

142.1%2.7%8.9%45011

100.8% 1.1%11.6%45044

367.8% 1.5%42.3%45219

0.7%5.1%45238

0.9%0.8%45245

205.2% 231.5%4.4%23.6%45246

1.7%6.7%45324

333.9% 1.9%38.4%45402

0.9%3.5%45504

1.3%3.2%45701

12


okLahoMaBlack Population 7.6%



oregonBlack Population 1.6%



PennSYLvaniaBlack Population 10.0%



PennSYLvania [ continued ]


rhode iSLandBlack Population 4.5%



South CaroLinaBlack Population 29.5%



South dakotaBlack Population 0.6%



tenneSSeeBlack Population 16.4%


4.0%4.1%74012

5.0%7.6%74105

125.0% 4.3%9.5%74107

106.5% 209.6%10.9%8.1%74120

2.4%6.2%73013

4.9%3.2%73069

263.1% 5.2%20.0%73103

259.2% 4.4%19.7%73110

211.5%11.0%5.5%73139

125.0% 268.7%21.5%2.0%97005

4.0%1.2%97015

118.7% 127.5%10.2%1.9%97030

118.7% 127.5%10.2%1.9%97030

167.5%13.4%0.6%97128

106.2% 6.5%1.7%97206

881.2% 4.2%14.1%97212

255.0%20.4%1.0%97305

3.9%1.5%97401

7.2%1.2%97402

3.9%0.1%97424

2.2%0.2%97439

7.6%0.8%97477

156.2%12.5%0.5%97501

3.4%0.6%97520

4.7%0.3%97526

3.7%0.3%97701

0.8%4.2%15017

0.9%4.6%15108

248.0% 1.1%24.8%15222

0.5%1.1%15501

0.6%1.9%15601

218.0% 2.0%21.8%15901

2.3%2.9%16801

1.4%3.4%17013

462.0% 187.5%6.0%46.2%17102

200.0%6.4%7.6%17202

128.1%4.1%2.8%17325

1.4%0.5%17331

1.0%0.5%17356

215.0% 443.7%14.2%21.5%17401

115.0% 759.3%24.3%11.5%17602

2.3%2.3%18045

199.0% 1428.1%45.7%19.9%18101

146.8%4.7%4.2%18360

3.0%8.7%18503

2.3%5.3%18701

1.5%1.7%18901

439.0% 1.2%43.9%19050

1.1%6.0%19063

1.6%2.8%19087

118.0% 118.7%3.8%11.8%19107

118.0% 118.7%3.8%11.8%19107

150.0%4.8%4.1%19152

3.2%5.6%19154

768.7%24.6%5.3%19311

228.0% 140.6%4.5%22.8%19320

2.5%6.4%19382

299.0% 278.1%8.9%29.9%19401

2.4%9.9%19426

109.0% 3.0%10.9%19464

110.0% 1343.7%43.0%11.0%19602

1.6%0.9%18951

4.1%2.9%18974

1.3%5.7%19002

147.0% 278.1%8.9%14.7%19007

140.6%4.5%5.9%19020

275.5% 174.7%15.2%12.4%02903

206.4% 1.6%60.9%29204

233.2% 1.5%68.8%29403

150.0% 1.3%0.9%57106

1.4%0.4%57702

325.6% 145.4%3.2%53.4%37203

251.2% 0.9%41.2%37914

343.9% 136.3%3.0%56.4%38112


155.6%

13

texaSBlack Population 11.5%



texaS [ continued ]


utahBlack Population 0.8%



verMontBlack Population 0.5%



virginiaBlack Population 19.6%


168.6% 19.0%19.4%75110

16.1%10.4%75150

16.1%10.4%75150

208.6% 14.5%24.0%75160

115.6% 18.8%13.3%75165

236.5% 126.5%40.5%27.2%75231

236.5% 126.5%40.5%27.2%75231

770.4% 7.3%88.6%75237

126.2%40.4%9.8%75254

202.6% 4.1%23.3%75460

183.4% 10.5%21.1%75701

163.4% 11.9%18.8%75904

139.1% 124.0%39.7%16.0%76010

11.7%10.1%76015

6.7%3.5%76021

5.5%0.7%76028

497.3% 26.2%57.2%76104

27.9%3.3%76114

18.6%10.4%76116

482.6% 23.2%55.5%76119

11.5%7.9%76205

12.4%4.3%76240

14.2%17.9%76642

360.8% 16.4%41.5%76661

240.8% 22.8%27.7%76701

113.9% 28.1%13.1%76706

26.5%3.2%76901

268.7%86.0%1.8%77023

200.0%64.0%3.0%77037

113.0% 13.6%13.0%77068

222.8%71.3%9.0%77081

162.6% 13.3%18.7%77340

165.9%53.1%7.4%77471

144.3% 27.2%16.6%77477

22.5%10.7%77539

11.0%6.1%77802

256.2%82.0%1.9%78201

190.6%61.0%2.5%78212

31.1%9.3%78217

210.3%67.3%4.3%78223

199.0%63.7%7.9%78227

295.3%94.5%2.8%78237

187.1%59.9%4.7%78238

248.4%79.5%0.7%78332

206.8%66.2%3.9%78363

262.5%84.0%0.5%78501

291.8%93.4%0.3%78521

291.8%93.4%0.3%78521

280.3%89.7%1.4%78539

121.8%39.0%10.7%75041

26.9%9.6%75062

16.5%7.9%75067

28.5%9.5%75069

27.4%8.1%75074

27.4%8.1%75074

111.3% 15.4%12.8%75090

280.3%89.7%1.4%78539

232.1%74.3%0.9%78550

268.4%85.9%3.0%78580

304.3%97.4%0.2%78582

298.1%95.4%0.3%78589

275.9%88.3%0.2%78596

206.0% 211.5%67.7%23.7%78702

106.2%34.0%4.9%78704

100.3%32.1%11.5%78758

134.0%42.9%10.5%79412

110.9%35.5%9.9%79603

105.2% 156.8%50.2%12.1%79701

146.5%46.9%8.7%79761

276.2%88.4%0.3%78572

308.1%98.6%0.0%78579

117.7%10.6%0.4%84057

221.1%19.9%0.4%84060

3.3%0.3%84095

225.0% 132.2%11.9%1.8%84102

225.0% 132.2%11.9%1.8%84102

200.0% 236.6%21.3%1.6%84119

7.8%0.5%84321

175.0% 162.2%14.6%1.4%84403

8.4%0.3%84770

120.0% 111.1%1.0%0.6%05201

160.0% 155.5%1.4%0.8%05301

360.0% 155.5%1.4%1.8%05401

0.7%0.3%05478

111.1%1.0%0.5%05495

177.7%1.6%0.3%05641

0.8%0.4%05655

0.8%0.4%05701

180.0% 211.1%1.9%0.9%05753

120.0% 122.2%1.1%0.6%05855

229.7%10.8%3.3%22046

3.1%11.6%22901

1.6%13.1%23221

161.2% 4.5%31.6%23462

223.9% 3.0%43.9%23666

338.7% 1.2%66.4%24017

2.1%3.9%24060


waShingtonBlack Population 3.2%


14


weSt virginiaBlack Population 3.2%



wiSConSinBlack Population 5.7%



wYoMingBlack Population 0.8%



waShington, dCBlack Population 60.0%


275.0% 114.6%8.6%8.8%98003

130.6%9.8%2.9%98007

3.4%0.8%98027

3.6%1.3%98028

231.2% 6.1%7.4%98031

6.4%2.6%98036

3.7%2.0%98105

781.2% 6.9%25.0%98122

228.1% 6.1%7.3%98126

5.2%4.2%98133

6.6%3.5%98201

4.4%0.9%98225

2.8%0.3%98250

4.2%0.5%98271

310.6%23.3%0.6%98273

131.2% 5.7%4.2%98277

4.5%5.2%98310

170.6%12.8%1.4%98331

2.0%0.4%98362

3.9%2.4%98373

2.3%0.2%98382

4.1%2.9%98383

678.1% 6.0%21.7%98405

3.8%1.1%98501

120.0%9.0%0.3%98531

6.0%1.5%98584

4.2%1.9%98662

4.6%1.0%98686

384.0%28.8%1.6%98902

5.4%0.8%98926

888.0%66.6%0.4%98944

3.7%2.3%99163

2.7%0.9%99206

3.4%2.5%99207

3.4%2.5%99207

638.6%47.9%2.7%99301

248.0%18.6%1.2%99336

213.3%16.0%2.1%99362

0.6%1.0%26105

2.9%0.2%53038

177.7%6.4%0.9%53081

1.6%0.2%53090

400.0%14.4%0.9%53115

136.1%4.9%2.4%53142

266.6%9.6%1.0%53186

154.3% 3.4%8.8%53202

143.8% 1800.0%64.8%8.2%53204

1105.2% 286.1%10.3%63.0%53212

1328.0% 2.2%75.7%53216

3.2%2.1%53227

603.5% 144.4%5.2%34.4%53233

501.7% 427.7%15.4%28.6%53403

122.8% 130.5%4.7%7.0%53704

303.5% 419.4%15.1%17.3%53713

2.6%2.8%53901

108.3%3.9%0.3%53916

1.3%0.2%54166

2.2%0.5%54220

144.4%5.2%3.9%54301

0.9%0.3%54494

0.9%0.6%54703

0.6%0.2%54729

1.6%0.6%54902

2.2%1.1%54911

0.8%0.4%54913

2.6%1.6%54935

3.3%0.4%82604

162.8% 0.9%97.7%20019

7.4%5.2%20036

15

Chart 2 – indePendent aBortion CLiniC LoCationS


aLaBaMaBlack Population 26.0%



aLaSkaBlack Population 3.5%



ariZonaBlack Population 3.1%


129.0%

101.1%


arkanSaSBlack Population 15.7%



CaLiforniaBlack Population 6.7%



CaLifornia [ continued ]

153.8% 152.9%2.6%40.0%35205

137.3% 1.7%35.7%35404

1.2%9.7%35801

1.1%7.4%36109

257.1% 185.3%7.6%9.0%99508

2.9%0.6%99611

129.0% 289.7%73.3%4.0%85006

29.2%3.8%85016

16.0%2.6%85018

25.6%3.8%85021

19.3%4.0%85712

2.6%14.2%72211

179.9%58.3%5.1%90005

191.0% 179.6%58.2%12.8%90007

1171.6% 14.3%78.5%90008

126.8% 19.6%8.5%90010

15.9%3.1%90025

284.8%92.3%1.5%90033

225.3% 29.2%15.1%90034

225.3% 29.2%15.1%90034

216.6%70.2%5.5%90057

216.6%70.2%5.5%90057

216.6%70.2%5.5%90057

216.6%70.2%5.5%90057

4.5%1.9%90211

4.5%1.9%90211

178.0%57.7%2.8%90241

295.0%95.6%0.7%90255

6.0%4.3%90292

17.3%3.5%90504

8.7%1.6%90505

104.9%34.0%4.5%91304

254.9%82.6%5.3%91331

129.3%41.9%4.2%91335

165.7%53.7%4.2%91345

13.1%3.8%91356

9.0%3.6%91403

181.4%58.8%6.0%91405

250.9%81.3%2.1%91744

186.1%60.3%6.2%91763

129.9%42.1%0.6%91770

186.4%60.4%4.5%91911

186.4%60.4%4.5%91911

186.4%60.4%4.5%91911

14.9%0.5%92024

149.6%48.5%2.1%92025

13.5%2.0%92078

12.7%2.5%92103

225.3% 149.3%48.4%15.1%92105

162.6% 24.4%10.9%92115

16.0%1.9%92117

9.3%2.9%92126

137.3% 14.4%9.2%92123

152.1%49.3%2.7%92234

214.9% 137.3%44.5%14.4%92408

139.8%45.3%6.0%92505

273.1%88.5%1.4%92701

273.1%88.5%1.4%92701

273.1%88.5%1.4%92701

139.1%45.1%2.7%92868

17.9%1.2%93065

168.6% 31.8%11.3%93301

102.9% 199.3%64.6%6.9%93701

142.2%46.1%4.2%94110

142.2%46.1%4.2%94110

265.6% 5.5%17.8%94115

265.6% 5.5%17.8%94115

122.8%39.8%4.5%94520

19.3%3.6%94538

192.5% 109.2%35.4%12.9%94541

7.8%1.1%94566

758.2% 12.6%50.8%94607

356.7% 6.9%23.9%94610

15.8%1.3%94954

199.0%64.5%2.9%95116

26.6%4.1%95204

104.9%34.0%4.5%91304

305.9% 133.9%43.4%20.5%90806

21.4%1.8%91203

28.5%1.4%91205

16

ZiP BlaCK CoMP CoMPHiSPaNiC

ColoradoBlack Population 3.8%



CoNNeCtiCutBlack Population 9.1%



delawareBlack Population 19.2%



floridaBlack Population 14.6%



CaliforNia [ continued ]

392.7% 3.2%75.4%19802

148.4% 4.4%28.5%19901

317.1% 3.4%46.3%32114

167.1% 3.9%24.4%32117

134.2% 5.5%19.6%32216

134.2% 5.5%19.6%32216

137.3% 16.4%9.2%95825

137.3% 16.4%9.2%95825

13.5%1.7%95928

5.7%1.0%96002

15.9%3.0%95355

7.0%1.1%95409

15.8%0.6%95437

8.7%1.8%95819

215.7% 6.8%8.2%80014

5.4%1.6%80111

1.0%3.8%80113

1.0%3.8%80113

176.3% 7.9%6.7%80206

6.7%1.6%80210

173.6% 11.4%6.6%80218

410.5% 16.7%15.6%80220

410.5% 16.7%15.6%80220

194.7% 125.1%21.4%7.4%80246

8.7%1.6%80301

9.7%0.8%80304

13.7%0.9%81501

5.7%0.6%81611

133.3%22.8%0.3%81621

7.9%0.4%81657

185.7% 614.8%57.8%16.9%06106

651.6% 403.1%37.9%59.3%06120

313.1% 231.9%21.8%28.5%06606

224.4%21.1%7.0%06810


florida [ continued ]

105.9%17.8%7.0%33021

308.9% 143.4%24.1%45.1%33023

112.5%18.9%13.3%33065

112.3% 267.2%44.9%16.4%33133

411.3%69.1%0.9%33134

552.9%92.9%2.3%33135

552.9%92.9%2.3%33135

423.9% 167.8%28.2%61.9%33136

255.3%42.9%12.0%33143

486.9% 110.7%18.6%71.1%33150

451.1%75.8%1.1%33155

332.8% 152.3%25.6%48.6%33162

332.8% 152.3%25.6%48.6%33162

332.8% 152.3%25.6%48.6%33162

369.6%62.1%5.4%33166

384.5%64.6%2.2%33173

439.8%73.9%2.8%33183

6.4%0.9%33308

556.8% 3.5%81.3%33311

465.0% 7.9%67.9%33313

465.0% 7.9%67.9%33313

132.1%22.2%5.4%33314

137.6% 104.1%17.5%20.1%33317

14.4%7.4%33321

14.4%7.4%33321

14.2%6.7%33324

127.9%21.5%12.3%33334

415.0% 9.3%60.6%33407

7.8%11.4%33606

127.3%21.4%7.0%33609

198.6% 106.5%17.9%29.0%33612

130.8% 101.7%17.1%19.1%33613

4.4%1.6%33710

6.1%9.4%33713

8.2%6.5%33756

3.8%0.8%33761

5.1%4.3%33813

151.3% 10.4%22.1%33901

4.8%1.5%33903

5.5%5.2%33952

5.2%0.9%34239

365.0% 4.5%53.3%34475

384.9% %18.1%56.2%34950

160.9% 6.7%23.5%32601

273.2% 4.1%39.9%32609

107.5% 14.2%15.7%32701

8.4%5.1%32803

9.7%5.3%32806

125.5%21.1%6.5%32812

535.7%90.0%1.6%33012

535.7%90.0%1.6%33012

537.5%90.3%1.5%33013

537.5%90.3%1.5%33013

123.9% 369.0%62.0%18.1%33015

107.7

134.2% 5.5%19.6%32216

322.6% 3.5%47.1%32301

2.7%12.1%32504

2.7%12.1%32504


iowaBlack Population 2.1%


17


idaHoBlack Population 0.4%


HawaiiBlack Population 1.8%

Hispanic Population

[ There are no independent facilities in this state. ]

7.2%


illiNoiSBlack Population 15.1%



iNdiaNaBlack Population 8.4%



KaNSaSBlack Population 5.7%



KeNtuCKyBlack Population 7.3%



louiSiaNaBlack Population 32.5%



MaiNeBlack Population 0.5%



MarylaNdBlack Population 27.9%



georgiaBlack Population 28.7%



iNdiaNa [ continued ]

304.5% 2.4%87.4%30349

2.5%10.5%30907

229.2% 1.4%65.8%31401

0.5%20.3%31904

311.4% 1.7%89.4%30035

196.2%10.4%26.0%30067

296.2%15.7%9.1%30076

364.1%19.3%9.9%30324

364.1%19.3%9.9%30324

460.3%24.4%16.2%30329

598.1%31.7%9.9%30341

598.1%31.7%9.9%30341

332.2%17.6%7.3%30342

150.0% 3.6%0.6%83702

10.5%2.7%60016

10.5%2.7%60016

195.9%24.1%1.0%60018

4.5%2.1%60137

108.9%13.4%0.5%60191

4.3%2.5%60516

3.2%3.1%60521

434.4% 113.8%14.0%65.6%60612

255.6% 9.1%38.6%60616

649.6% 0.7%98.1%60619

133.3%16.4%0.5%60630

544.3% 1.3%82.2%60637

6.6%0.4%60646

550.4%67.7%6.8%60647

550.4%67.7%6.8%60647

142.3% 5.9%21.5%60661

130.8%16.1%14.0%61104

1.4%5.6%61614

106.6% 5.5%16.1%61820

2.4%2.6%62040

135.7% 2.4%11.4%46219

457.1% 211.4%7.4%38.4%46222

2.8%4.0%46241

660.7% 211.4%7.4%55.5%46408

2.2%4.5%46635

2.3%4.9%46815

109.5 % 2.1%2.3%52245

712.2% 434.2%30.4%40.6%66101

1.2%1.5%66211

915.0% 140.0%2.1%66.8%40202

%2.5%2.7%40503 166.6

450.0%10.8%6.0%70002

156.9% 133.3%3.2%51.0%70115

156.9% 133.3%3.2%51.0%70115

225.2% 133.3%3.2%73.2%70122

138.7% 1.4%45.1%70806

108.3%2.6%27.1%71104

%3.2%23.9%71111 133.3

120.0% 157.1%1.1%0.6%04106

114.2%0.8%0.4%04330

160.0% %0.9%0.8%04401 128.5

254.1% 300.0%12.9%70.9%20710

130.2%5.6%15.5%20740

BlaCK CoMP CoMPHiSPaNiC

MarylaNd [ continued ]


MiCHigaN [ continued ]

18


MaSSaCHuSettSBlack Population 5.4%



MiCHigaNBlack Population 14.2%



MiNNeSotaBlack Population 3.5%



MiSSiSSiPPiBlack Population 36.3%



MoNtaNaBlack Population 0.3%


MiSSouriBlack Population 11.2%

Hispanic Population


2.1%


NeBraSKaBlack Population 4.0%



NevadaBlack Population 6.8%



ZiP

1.7%6.0%21236

2.1%16.3%21237

1.5%11.0%21740

130.2%5.6%15.5%20740

312.1% 2.4%87.1%20746

322.2% 1.3%89.9%20747

140.8% 944.1%40.6%39.3%20783

301.0% 3.1%84.0%20785

141.8%6.1%3.4%20814

195.3%8.4%10.1%20850

209.3%9.0%17.0%20874

637.2%27.4%17.7%20877

637.2%27.4%17.7%20877

3.0%24.9%21117

1.9%17.6%21228

1.1%0.7%01778

135.2%9.2%2.8%01830

4.8%3.2%01904

3.4%1.0%01960

3.72.4%02446

3.72.4%02446

3.72.4%02446

4.3%1.6%02703

1.2%3.8%48025

497.8% 1.0%70.7%48075

296.4% 1.1%42.1%48076

1.0%1.5%48093

118.3% 121.2%4.0%16.8%48108

3.1%1.4%48126

1.8%1.4%48152

2.5%6.2%48185

594.3% 0.8%84.4%48205

598.5% 1.0%85.0%48219

557.7% 1.1%79.2%48224

678.1% 0.6%96.3%48235

1.3%6.0%48302

1.2%1.2%48310

1.2%1.2%48310

1.2%1.7%48312

1.4%6.5%48322

2.9%1.1%48346

469.7% 2.0%66.7%48504

127.2%4.2%5.4%48603

384.8%12.7%13.1%48906

148.4%4.9%8.9%48917

2.4%6.3%49120

161.2% 166.6%5.5%22.9%49442

156.3% 463.6%15.3%22.2%49503

145.4%4.8%13.1%49508

137.1% 2.0%4.8%55422

0.9%1.9%55802

417.1% 337.9%9.8%14.6%55101

1040.0% 2.8%36.4%55402

797.1% 537.9%15.6%27.9%55404

797.1% 537.9%15.6%27.9%55404

0.5%35.3%39216

1.9%0.3%59047

1.8%0.3%59802

1.4%0.2%59901

157.5% 5.1%6.3%68005

277.9% 319.2%62.9%18.9%89030

89074 *


New jerSeyBlack Population 13.6%



New MexiCoBlack Population 1.9%



New yorKBlack Population 15.9%



*

19


New HaMPSHireBlack Population 0.7%



Nevada [ continued ]

176.6%34.8%6.7%89104

122.0% 160.9%31.7%8.3%89119

89169

170.5%33.6%2.5%89502*

357.1% 405.8%6.9%2.5%03103

171.4% 1.5%1.2%03301

0.7%0.3%03840

668.3% 4.1%90.9%07018

7.9%1.7%07024

319.8% 5.7%43.5%07042

127.9% 10.0%17.4%07052

254.4% 224.8%29.9%34.6%07060

113.9% 9.3%15.5%07083

566.1%75.3%3.6%07087

9.8%8.1%07095

139.7% 321.0%42.7%19.0%07208

116.9% 218.0%29.0%15.9%07306

180.8% 194.7%25.9%24.6%07601

286.7% 163.9%21.8%39.0%07631

286.7% 163.9%21.8%39.0%07631

286.7% 163.9%21.8%39.0%07631

4.9%1.1%07652

103.7%13.8%0.8%07657

5.7%3.7%07731

3.5%5.5%08002

2.7%3.8%08034

2.5%8.0%08043

6.3%11.3%08201

4.3%4.8%08540

4.3%2.7%08755

4.2%2.8%08816

3.7%2.2%08865

208.3% 8.8%28.3%08873

221.0% 163.4%68.8%4.2%87102

221.0% 163.4%68.8%4.2%87102

124.7%52.5%0.7%87505

174.8%73.6%1.0%88008

289.9% 364.2%55.0%46.1%10451

173.5% 494.7%74.7%27.6%10455

173.5% 494.7%74.7%27.6%10455

227.6% 409.9%61.9%36.2%10457

145.9% 389.4%58.8%23.2%10458

172.1%26.0%4.9%10461

172.1%26.0%4.9%10461

11.9%7.7%10605

11.2%10.9%10710

5.5%1.7%10950

3.4%1.2%11030

158.4% 236.4%35.7%25.2%11101

130.1% 14.4%20.7%11201

130.1% 14.4%20.7%11201

130.1% 14.4%20.7%11201

423.8%64.0%6.0%11232

244.0% 7.0%38.8%11234

527.1%79.6%10.1%11237

125.1%18.9%4.4%11354

7.7%2.0%11364

373.5%56.4%2.9%11372

373.5%56.4%2.9%11372

373.5%56.4%2.9%11372

373.5%56.4%2.9%11372

373.5%56.4%2.9%11372

285.4%43.1%2.0%11373

13.1%2.6%11374

10.2%2.5%11375

10.2%2.5%11375

186.0%28.1%4.1%11417

12.7%6.8%11746

3.4%0.7%11787

4.7%1.3%11788

1.0%1.2%13057

1.0%1.2%13057

13851

235.8% 2.8%37.5%14214

1.8%5.7%14228

1.7%2.3%14618

5.1%14.1%14620

5.1%14.1%14620

133.1%20.1%9.8%10001

7.6%4.4%10003

4.7%4.8%10013

7.9%5.2%10016

5.4%3.4%10017

5.4%3.4%10017

5.4%3.4%10017

4.8%1.2%10022

8.3%5.5%10023

11.1%5.9%10024

8.7%4.9%10128


PeNNSylvaNiaBlack Population 10.0%


20


NortH daKotaBlack Population 0.6%



oHioBlack Population 11.5%



oKlaHoMaBlack Population 7.6%



oregoNBlack Population 1.6%



rHode iSlaNdBlack Population 4.5%



SoutH CaroliNaBlack Population 29.5%


SoutH daKotaBlack Population 0.6%

Hispanic Population


1.4%


teNNeSSeeBlack Population 16.4%



texaSBlack Population 11.5%



NortH CaroliNaBlack Population 21.6%



195.7%9.2%14.9%27609

3.3%12.1%28211

3.3%12.1%28211

131.9% 127.6%6.0%28.5%28273

113.8% 4.5%24.6%28306

113.4% 161.7%7.6%24.5%28546

207.4% 2.5%44.8%28801

142.5%6.7%21.1%27262

245.8% 2.4%53.1%27406

116.6% 146.8%6.9%25.2%27407

3.3%9.2%27514

138.2%6.5%13.3%27606

4.6%11.0%27607

133.3% 108.3%1.3%0.8%58102

709.5% 1.5%81.6%43205

1.2%2.9%43214

163.4% 152.6%2.9%18.8%43231

345.2% 563.1%10.7%39.7%43604

231.5%4.4%5.6%43612

1036.8%19.7%7.0%44109

663.4% 1.1%76.3%44120

264.3% 121.0%2.3%30.4%44304

1.1%3.6%45241

1.7%6.7%45324

1.0%1.0%45429

4.9%3.2%73069

181.5% 109.6%5.7%13.8%73132

109.6%5.7%6.6%74135

192.5%15.4%0.4%97116

331.2% 5.1%5.3%97205

3.0%1.6%97210

3.9%1.5%97401

512.0% 1.5%51.2%15206

512.0% 1.5%51.2%15206

248.0% 1.1%24.8%15222

355.0% 118.7%3.8%35.5%17110

2.7%1.6%18104

18109

758.0% 162.5%5.2%75.8%19013

2.9%6.3%19106

833.0% 2.5%83.3%19141

*

411.1% %26.5%18.5%02905 304.5

104.0% 1.6%30.7%29407

155.9% 2.3%46.0%29605

114.0% 454.5%10.0%18.7%37211

0.6%2.3%37620

0.9%1.1%37643

1.4%7.4%37916

1.9%4.3%37919

167.6% 154.5%3.4%27.5%38104

167.6% 154.5%3.4%27.5%38104

6.2%1.6%75205

236.5% 126.5%40.5%27.2%75231

219.6%70.3%9.9%75235

294.7% 14.4%33.9%75243

12.6%4.3%76108

196.2%62.8%4.8%76110

224.3% 14.8%25.8%76542

ZiP BLacK coMP coMPhisPanic

texas [ continued ]


virginia [ continued ]

21


utahBlack Population 0.8%



virginiaBlack Population 19.6%


verMontBlack Population 0.5%

Hispanic Population


0.9%


washingtonBlack Population 3.2%



west virginiaBlack Population 3.2%



wisconsinBlack Population 5.7%



wyoMingBlack Population 0.8%



washington, dcBlack Population 60.0%



160.8% 0.9%96.5%20020

161.6% 0.8%97.0%20032

5.6%7.1%20037

353.0% 22.0%40.6%77002

629.5% 11.8%72.4%77004

135.0%43.2%4.2%77008

587.8% 31.1%67.6%77026

22.6%4.7%77057

177.3% 135.0%43.2%20.4%77074

177.3% 135.0%43.2%20.4%77074

225.9%72.3%8.0%77076

152.1% 18.4%17.5%77090

17.8%2.2%77098

7.9%1.0%77401

207.8% 7.2%23.9%77707

190.6%61.0%2.5%78212

190.6%61.0%2.5%78212

194.7% 137.5%44.0%22.4%78222

187.1%59.9%4.7%78238

132.8%42.5%5.3%78240

132.8%42.5%5.3%78240

201.8%64.6%1.9%78404

262.5%84.0%0.5%78501

232.1%74.3%0.9%78550

106.2%34.0%4.9%78704

9.8%2.8%78750

162.6% 120.3%38.5%18.7%78753

237.8%76.1%1.5%79902

237.8%76.1%1.5%79902

137.5% 8.9%1.1%84107

425.0% 256.6%23.1%3.4%84111

3.6%0.5%84124

302.1%14.2%12.4%20110

206.3%9.7%7.5%22030

293.6%13.8%5.5%22031

229.7%10.8%3.3%22046

124.4% 319.1%15.0%24.4%22304

114.2% 108.5%5.1%22.4%22314

3.1%11.6%22901

227.5% 1.9%44.6%23220

1.9%5.0%23229

128.0% 2.9%25.1%23601

231.6% 2.4%45.4%24016

4.3%17.9%23452

245.9% 3.2%48.2%23502

121.4% 4.1%23.8%23518

98057

328.1% 5.1%10.5%98101

625.0% 7.2%20.0%98104

3.0%1.9%98115

781.2% 6.9%25.0%98122

781.2% 6.9%25.0%98122

678.1% 6.0%21.7%98405

350.0% 6.9%11.2%98418

*

415.6% 0.5%13.3%25302

203.1% 142.8%1.0%6.5%25304

154.3% 3.4%8.8%53202

144.4%5.2%3.9%54301

3.6%1.7%54303

%8.1%0.2%83001 126.5

22

analysis & conclusion

It is important to remember that every time there is a

figure in the “coMP” column, that figure represents

a population control facility in a ZIP code that is

disproportionately black, disproportionately Hispanic

or, in many cases, both.

The fact is that even a cursory scan of those columns

takes the allegations of racial targeting made in

Maafa 21 and transforms them into an observable

and undeniable reality.

The numbers are staggering. As just one example,

consider Texas which has 94 Zip codes with at least

one population control facility. Of those, only 22 are

not disproportionately black and/or Hispanic.

As the charts demonstrate, similar patterns are found

across the country and they do not vary appreciably

by the size of the state. In Connecticut – a state

thoroughly dissimilar from Texas in size, culture and

geography – there are 21 Zip codes in which

population control facilities are located and only six

are not disproportionately black and/or Hispanic.

It is also important to note the number of times there

are multiple facilities in disproportionately minority

ZIP codes. For example, in New Jersey, ZIP code

07631 has a black population 286.7% of the state’s

overall percentage and a Hispanic population

163.9% of the state. That ZIP code alone has four

population control facilities. Similarly, Minnesota ZIP

code 55404 has a black population that is 797.1% of

the overall state percentage and a Hispanic

population 537.9% of the state. In that ZIP code

there are three population control centers.

Again, this pattern is repeated in state after state.

We identified 116 ZIP codes with more than one

population control facility. Of those, 84 were

disproportionately black and/or Hispanic. What this

means is that, when the American family planning

industry places multiple facilities in a ZIP code, that

ZIP code is more than two-and-a-half times as likely

to be disproportionately minority as not.

What we now know – and have documented – is that

there is not one state in the union without population

control centers located in ZIP codes with higher

percentages of blacks and/or Hispanics than the

state’s overall percentage. In fact, Hawaii is the only

state that does not have facilities located in ZIP

codes exceeding 125% of their overall percentage.

Not only is this racial targeting widespread, it’s scale

is often enormous. We found 42 states with family

planning facilities in ZIP codes where the black

and/or Hispanic populations exceeds 200% of the

state’s overall percentage. More telling is that these

percentages routinely go far beyond even this level.

Numerous states have facilities in ZIP codes that

range from 250% to well over 1,000% and it is not

uncommon for them to have facilities located in

many such ZIP codes.

In the end, this data speaks for itself and does not

require a lot of analysis. The numbers make it clear

that the African-American and Hispanic communities

have been targeted and logic makes it clear that this

did not happen coincidentally or unintentionally.

It should also be noted that this eugenics effort is

being funded with taxpayer money. Currently,

Planned Parenthood alone receives approximately

one million dollars a day from the federal government

plus an unknown amount in state and local funds.

Moreover, this has been going on for decades.

For years, there have been those within the American

political system who have taken action to address

the disproportionate treatment of minorities. Earlier,

this issue was raised in the context of alcohol and

tobacco marketing but, make no mistake, it exists in

many other parts of our culture as well.

Now, this report validates the revelations contained

in Maafa 21 to create a new challenge. The question

becomes whether the political leaders who have so

righteously spoken out against these other injustices,

will remain silent in the face of this one. Should that

be their decision, they will surrender their credibility

and lose the right to ever again be outraged.

Maafa 21 information

This 2-hour and 17-minute documentary

is available on DVD for $20 including shipping.

To place an order, call toll-free or go online.

1 | 800 | 800-5433

Maafa21.com

This website also features a short trailer

of the film plus comments from

previous viewers.

For additional information, call

940 | 380-8800

Copyright 2011

Life dynamics incorporated

Post Office Box 2226

Denton, Texas

76202

940 | 380-8800

This report was funded by the supporters

of Life Dynamics Incorporated.

Life Dynamics Incorporated is a

501(c)(3) corporation and

donations may be

tax deductible.

racial targeting and population control - - the pro

Documents