On Demographic Reality, Organizational Accountability, and the Suppression of Inconvenient Evidence
By John F. Sendelbach · Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts · June 2026
METHODOLOGY NOTE
This paper relies primarily on data produced by organizations that support abortion access. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Abortion Surveillance Reports constitute the primary longitudinal statistical source. The Guttmacher Institute, which explicitly advocates for reproductive rights, provides supplementary data on provider location and access. Where pro-life organizations compile or analyze this data — as in the Abort73.com racial breakdown — their methodology is documented and their primary sources are the same federal datasets.
This sourcing choice is deliberate. The demographic trends documented in Section II are not the product of pro-life advocacy research. They are produced by the same institutional apparatus that provides the primary evidence base for pro-choice policy arguments. A reader who trusts Guttmacher on abortion access should trust Guttmacher on abortion demographics.
Methodological limitations are noted where relevant. CDC race reporting is incomplete in some years. Some states do not report to federal surveillance systems. Guttmacher and CDC produce different totals due to different data collection methodologies. These limitations do not affect the directional conclusions. The trend documented below is consistent across both datasets across five decades.
I. PERSONAL STANDING
Why the Author Is Qualified to Make This Argument
I am going to begin with something I have never put in writing before, because everything that follows depends on you understanding that I am not making this argument from a comfortable distance.
I was twenty-one years old. Graduate school. A relationship. A decision that the culture around me said was normal, acceptable, and no big deal.
It was a big deal.
I would have a forty-year-old child right now. My life would be unrecognizable compared to what it became. I have carried the weight of that decision for four decades — not as a political position adopted from a movement, not as a religious conviction inherited from a tradition, but as a private moral reckoning that converted me, slowly and irreversibly, into a person who believes that the moment of conception is the moment a human life begins, and that no subsequent argument about timing or readiness changes what that life is or what it deserves.
I am calling myself complicit in a death. That is not rhetoric. It is how I have been able to reconcile, over forty years, what happened in a decision I wish I had made differently.
This is my standing to make what follows. Not a church. Not a party. Not a framework someone handed me. Forty years of living with a specific decision and arriving, through that living, at a specific conviction.
That conviction does not require the reader to agree with it. It requires the reader to engage with the argument rather than dismiss the arguer.
How the Author Arrived at This Question
In the spring of 2020 — during the pandemic lockdowns, while a campaign was being run against me in my community that I document elsewhere¹ — I found myself spending time I would normally have spent welding at a computer, following evidence.
My initial research target was the Black Lives Matter organization. On June 6, 2020, I had appeared at a protest on the Iron Bridge in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts, and raised specific objections to the BLM organization's conduct, funding, and ideological associations. I drew a specific distinction — documented on video — between the Black Lives Matter organization and Black people as a community. Those are two different things. The distinction was not heard. I was designated a racist.
What followed is documented in the archive at johnsendelbach.com and forms the subject of a separate book-length analysis.² What concerns us here is what I found when I followed the research trail from the organization to its financial record to its founding ideology to the demographic data it claimed to represent.
I found the numbers in Section II.
I had not been looking for them. I found them by following evidence without a framework telling me which conclusions were permitted.
II. THE DEMOGRAPHIC RECORD
Primary Sources
The data in this section draws primarily on:
- CDC Abortion Surveillance Reports, 1970–2021
- US Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census
- Guttmacher Institute provider and incidence data
- Abort73.com racial breakdown compilation, drawing on CDC longitudinal data with documented methodology³
The Absolute Numbers
Approximately 66 million total abortions have been performed in the United States since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.⁴ Drawing on CDC longitudinal data with racial breakdown, approximately 22 million of those abortions were performed on Black women.⁵ The current non-Hispanic Black population of the United States is approximately 40 million people.⁶
The arithmetic is straightforward: abortion has reduced the size of the Black community in the United States by more than 35 percent in direct absolute terms — that is, counting only the abortions themselves against the current population, without accounting for the children and grandchildren those individuals would have produced across fifty years.
A note on the counterfactual projection: estimates that incorporate descendant compounding — the demographic effect of fifty years of potential reproduction — range from 35 percent to 55 percent or higher depending on methodology and fertility rate assumptions. The 35 percent figure requires no projection. It is a direct comparison of documented abortion counts to documented current population. The higher figures are reasonable estimates, not documented facts, and are presented as such.
Either figure represents demographic impact of a scale that would, in any other context involving any other community, be described as a crisis.
The Proportional Trend
The absolute numbers are significant. The trend is more significant.
CDC Abortion Surveillance data shows the following proportional representation of Black women in total US abortions by decade:⁷
- 1970s: approximately 24 percent
- 1980s: approximately 30 percent
- 1990s: approximately 34 percent
- 2000s: approximately 36 percent
- 2010s: approximately 38 percent
The proportion has increased every single decade since legalization without exception. This is not a stable disparity produced by historical conditions that are slowly resolving. It is an accelerating trend that has moved consistently in one direction across fifty years of data.
The Rate Disparity
Black women constitute approximately 13 to 14 percent of the US female population. They account for approximately 38 to 40 percent of reported abortions in recent years.⁸ Black children are aborted at approximately four times the rate of white children. Hispanic children at approximately 1.5 times the rate of white children.⁹
These disparities are documented by Guttmacher — an organization that advocates for abortion access — and are not in empirical dispute. The dispute, as examined in Section IV, concerns their cause and moral significance.
III. THE ORGANIZATIONAL RECORD
Margaret Sanger and the Founding Ideology
Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which subsequently became Planned Parenthood. Her eugenicist views are documented and not seriously disputed by historians or by Planned Parenthood itself, which formally disavowed her legacy in 2020 and removed her name from their Manhattan clinic.
Sanger advocated for the restriction of reproduction among those she deemed unfit. She supported the Supreme Court's 1927 Buck v. Bell decision upholding forced sterilization. She corresponded with prominent eugenicists and participated in the eugenicist movement at its peak influence in American public life.
The 1939 "Negro Project" — Sanger's outreach program to Black communities in the American South — is interpreted differently by different historians. The letter to Clarence Gamble in which she discussed the importance of Black ministers in dispelling fears that the clinics were intended to "exterminate the Negro population" is cited by critics as evidence of targeted population control and by defenders as evidence of her concern about misperceptions of a legitimate health outreach program. Both interpretations are documented in the scholarly record.
Planned Parenthood's formal disavowal of Sanger's eugenics views does not address the trend documented in Section II. The trend exists regardless of what the organization says about its founder. The question is not whether Sanger intended demographic harm in 1939. The question is what the data shows in 2024.
The Financial Record of BLMGNF
The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation raised approximately $90 million in the year following George Floyd's death in May 2020.¹⁰ The financial record of how that money was managed is documented in IRS filings, state regulatory actions, and independent journalism.
Approximately 23 to 24 percent of donated funds reached local Black-led organizations and BLM chapters — the community organizations whose labor the national brand was built on.¹¹
In October 2020, four months after the fundraising surge, BLMGNF purchased a property in Studio City, California: six bedrooms, recording studio, pool, six thousand five hundred square feet, purchased for approximately $6 million through a linked entity in a transaction that initially obscured the foundation's ownership.¹²
IRS filings documented related-party transactions including approximately $840,000 to a company associated with co-founder Patrisse Cullors' brother and approximately $2.1 million to her partner's organization.¹³ Cullors, who describes herself as a Marxist, purchased four properties totaling approximately $3.2 million in value during the same period she served as executive director.¹⁴
The state of California issued delinquency notices for failure to file required financial disclosures. The state of Washington directed the organization to cease fundraising pending compliance. By 2023, annual revenue had declined from $90 million to approximately $9 million — a 90 percent decline in two years. A 2025 PBS report cited an ongoing Department of Justice investigation into donor fraud.¹⁵
The Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, founded by Ibram X. Kendi in July 2020 at the peak of the post-Floyd fundraising environment, raised an estimated $40 to $55 million. The center was closed in June 2025 after a Korn Ferry audit commissioned by Boston University found organizational dysfunction and leadership failures that had prevented the center from functioning as a research institution. Peer-reviewed research output was minimal relative to the funding received.¹⁶
The Opal Tometi / Maduro Association — A Subsidiary Point
This section presents a documented association and an unverified claim. They are presented separately.
What is documented: Opal Tometi, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, shared a stage with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the National Black Theatre in Harlem in September 2015. She praised Venezuela's electoral process as "thriving and rigorous," traveled to Venezuela as an international election observer, and issued a statement characterizing the opposition's electoral victory as "a significant blow to the progressive and most impoverished sectors."¹⁷ These statements exist in Tometi's own public record.
What is not verified: A 2025 Heritage Foundation report cited a defected Venezuelan official claiming that Hugo Chávez provided approximately $20 million in cash to Tometi and associates around 2012 to advance the Bolivarian revolutionary project in the United States. This claim has not been confirmed by independent reporting or court proceedings and is strongly denied by everyone it implicates. It is noted for completeness and labeled as unverified.
What is not in dispute: The regime Tometi praised as thriving and rigorous in 2015 produced the largest humanitarian crisis in the history of Latin America. By 2025, approximately 7.7 to 8 million Venezuelans had fled the country — approximately one quarter of the total population — driven by economic collapse, political repression, and the inability to obtain food and medicine. The victims of that collapse were overwhelmingly poor, overwhelmingly Black and brown. A co-founder of a movement claiming to represent oppressed Black and brown lives in the United States had publicly validated the regime producing their oppression elsewhere.
This is a subsidiary point. It does not carry the central argument. It is part of the organizational record.
IV. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS AND WHY THEY DO NOT DISSOLVE THE CHALLENGE
Any serious engagement with the data in Section II must engage the strongest counterargument: the demographic disparity in abortion rates is not the product of targeting, ideology, or organizational intent. It is the product of systemic socioeconomic inequality.
The argument is made by Guttmacher, by Planned Parenthood, by public health researchers, and by mainstream reproductive rights advocacy. It deserves to be stated in its strongest form.
Black women experience higher rates of unintended pregnancy because they disproportionately experience the conditions that produce unintended pregnancy: poverty, limited access to quality healthcare, inconsistent access to contraception, lower rates of health insurance coverage, neighborhood effects that reduce access to reproductive health services, and the downstream consequences of two centuries of deliberate economic exclusion. Higher unintended pregnancy rates produce higher abortion rates. The disparity is not a design feature of the abortion industry. It is a symptom of structural inequality. The solution is not restricting abortion access. The solution is addressing the structural conditions that produce unintended pregnancy in the first place.
This argument is partially correct. Socioeconomic conditions do explain a portion of the disparity. This paper does not dispute that.
What the socioeconomic explanation cannot account for is the trend.
The proportion of abortions performed on Black women has increased every decade since legalization — from 24 percent in the 1970s to 38 percent in the 2010s — across a fifty-year period during which Black Americans made measurable socioeconomic progress in multiple domains. College graduation rates among Black Americans increased substantially. Black household income grew. Black representation in professional and managerial occupations expanded. The Black middle class, by multiple measures, grew significantly between 1973 and 2020.
If the disparity were purely a function of poverty and structural inequality, it should track those socioeconomic indicators. It does not. The proportion increased as socioeconomic conditions improved. That divergence requires explanation that the socioeconomic framework alone does not supply.
There is a second problem with the socioeconomic explanation as a response to the consistency challenge.
The political coalition that most vocally supports the BLM organizational framework is the same coalition that holds political power in the cities and states where the socioeconomic conditions producing the disparity are most acute. If the disparity is caused by poverty, lack of healthcare access, and inadequate contraceptive availability, those are policy problems with policy solutions. The coalition with both the stated commitment to Black lives and the political power to address those structural conditions has had fifty years to do so. The trend has moved in one direction across the entirety of that period.
The socioeconomic explanation does not eliminate the consistency challenge. It reframes it. If you believe the disparity is caused by structural inequality, then the obligation falls on the coalition claiming to prioritize Black lives to address the structural inequality producing it. The trend line suggests that obligation has not been met.
V. THE CONSISTENCY CHALLENGE
Stating the Argument Precisely
This section makes a philosophical consistency argument. It does not require the reader to be pro-life. It requires only the acceptance of a single premise: that if Black lives matter as a moral proposition, that proposition should be applied consistently to the available evidence.
The available evidence is in Section II.
The same political coalition that most vocally advances the BLM organizational framework provides the primary institutional support for the abortion industry producing the trends documented in Section II. This is not an inference. It is documented in voting records, political donation patterns, corporate statement archives, and the Democratic Party platform, which has simultaneously committed to racial justice framing and unrestricted abortion access without examination of the tension between them.
The organizations and individuals most invested in protecting abortion access are, with near-complete overlap, the same organizations and individuals most invested in advancing the BLM organizational framework. These positions are held simultaneously and treated as compatible without scrutiny.
They are not compatible without scrutiny. The data in Section II requires scrutiny.
The Sanger Thread as Organizational Consistency Problem
The organization most responsible for providing abortion services in the United States was founded by a documented eugenicist who discussed managing Black population growth. The proportion of abortions performed on Black women has increased every decade since that organization's founding ideology was operationalized through legalization in 1973. The formal disavowal of Sanger's legacy does not address the trend. The trend exists in the data regardless of what the organization says about its history.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg — A Primary Source
In a 2009 New York Times Magazine interview, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who voted consistently to protect abortion access throughout her tenure — stated: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."¹⁸
This is not a pro-life activist making this claim. This is a sitting Supreme Court Justice acknowledging, on the record, that population control ideology was present at the founding of the legal framework protecting abortion access. The statement is a primary source. It is in the record. It requires engagement.
VI. THE BLACK SCHOLARLY TRADITION ON THIS QUESTION
Independent Convergence
During my pandemic research in 2020 I arrived at the conclusions in Section II without prior knowledge of the Black pro-life scholarly tradition. I followed the CDC data where it led and reached a specific set of conclusions about demographic impact, organizational consistency, and the suppression of inconvenient evidence.
The same conclusions had been documented, argued, and testified to before Congress by Black scholars and advocates for decades. I did not know this when I reached them.
Independent convergence of this kind is not a coincidence. It is what happens when evidence is followed without a framework filtering the permissible conclusions. Different people in different places with different backgrounds and different life experiences, examining the same data without ideological permission structures, arrive at the same place.
Named Scholars and Advocates
Alveda King is the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. and the founder of Priests for Life's African American Outreach. She has called abortion in the Black community "the silent genocide" since the 1980s and has testified before Congress on the demographic impact of abortion on Black Americans multiple times over four decades. Her argument is identical in its core structure to the argument in Section II. She arrived at it through her own experience and her own analysis of the same demographic data.
Star Parker is a Black conservative commentator and founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. She has made the organizational consistency argument — that organizations claiming to represent Black interests cannot ignore the abortion industry's demographic record — since the 1990s and has testified before Congress on the subject.
Ryan Bomberger is the co-founder of the Radiance Foundation and the creator of the TooManyAborted campaign. He is Black. His organization has produced extensive documented research on Sanger, clinic placement, and the longitudinal CDC abortion data specifically as it pertains to the Black community. His methodology is documented and his sources are the same federal datasets used in this paper.
Walter Hoye is a Black pastor in Oakland, California, who was convicted of violating a bubble zone ordinance for standing outside an abortion clinic in a Black neighborhood and making this argument to women entering the clinic. He went to jail for this position. His conviction was the direct consequence of raising, on a public sidewalk, the same argument this paper makes from a desk.
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged the connection between abortion, eugenics, and the Black community in his concurrence in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (2019). His opinion draws on the historical record of eugenicist ideology in the development of American abortion law and raises the question of whether that history has demographic consequences in the present. This is a primary source in the Supreme Court record of the United States.
What the Suppression of This Scholarship Reveals
These voices are not unknown. They have testified before Congress. They have published research. They have gone to jail. Their arguments are in the public record at the highest levels of American institutional life.
The movement that claims to center Black voices has largely ignored this body of Black scholarship because it produces conclusions the movement cannot accommodate without threatening its own organizational and ideological framework.
On June 6, 2020, standing on a bridge in a village of 1,900 people, I made the same argument that Alveda King had been making before Congress for thirty years. The response was a petition calling for the removal of my public artwork, two front-page newspaper articles branding me a disruptor, and five years of documented institutional harassment.
The movement did not call Alveda King a racist. It ignored her. Both responses — the attack on the white artist and the silence toward the Black scholar — serve the same function. They keep the data out of the conversation.
The data is in Section II. It has always been in Section II.
VII. THE FETAL PERSONHOOD LEGAL CONTEXT
The Author's Position and Its Legal Parallels
My conviction is that personhood begins at conception. I did not arrive at this through legal theory or religious instruction. I arrived at it by having an abortion at twenty-one and spending forty years living with what that meant. The DNA integration at the moment of conception — whatever you call the entity that results — produces something that deserves to ride out its destiny. That is my position. It is a moral position arrived at through personal experience.
The law is now building infrastructure around the same moral intuition through a different mechanism and with contested implications.
Current Legal Landscape
At least 17 states have established fetal rights by law or judicial decision applicable to criminal or civil law.¹⁹ At least 24 states include fetal personhood language in laws regulating or prohibiting abortion care.²⁰
In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine that frozen embryos are "extrauterine children" under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act — the first ruling of its kind in the United States.²¹ The ruling temporarily halted IVF services in the state before the legislature passed emergency legislation to restore them.
In January 2025, Executive Order 14168 defined "female" and "male" as determined "at conception," establishing a federal executive precedent of personhood beginning at fertilization.²²
The Life at Conception Act, which would extend a constitutional right to life from the moment of fertilization, was reintroduced in Congress in 2025.²³
The IVF Complication — Honest Engagement
The application of fetal personhood to frozen embryos creates genuine medical and legal complications for IVF access that an honest pro-life position must engage rather than ignore. If personhood begins at fertilization, the moral status of embryos created and not implanted in IVF is a genuine question. The Alabama ruling produced real harm to real people seeking fertility treatment. This paper does not resolve that question. It notes it as the kind of genuine complexity that honest engagement with the personhood argument requires and that neither side of the institutional debate has addressed with adequate seriousness.
What the Legal Movement Does Not Change
The legal personhood debate is a separate question from the consistency challenge in Section V. The reader does not have to accept fetal personhood as a legal framework to find the trend in Section II troubling. The reader does not have to be pro-life to ask why the proportion of Black abortions has increased every decade since legalization. The consistency challenge stands regardless of where the reader lands on the legal personhood question. The arithmetic is available to everyone regardless of their position on the law.
VIII. WHAT HAPPENED ON THE BRIDGE: A CASE STUDY IN CLOSED EPISTEMICS
What Was Actually Said — The Documented Record
On June 6, 2020, I appeared at a Black Lives Matter demonstration on the Iron Bridge in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts. I raised objections to the Black Lives Matter organization — its financial record, its ideological associations, its founding narrative. I drew a specific distinction between the organization and the Black community. That distinction is on video. It is in the archive at johnsendelbach.com. It can be verified by anyone with an internet connection.
The same distinction is made routinely by John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, Thomas Sowell, and Shelby Steele — none of whom are designated racists for making it. The distinction between a community of human beings and an organization claiming to represent them is not a subtle one. It is a standard analytical distinction applied to every other organization that claims to represent a constituency. It is only when applied to BLM that making the distinction becomes evidence of racism.
The Framework's Response
The distinction was not engaged. It was designated. The petition that followed — created by a person who was not present at the event and was subsequently removed by Change.org for defamation and misinformation violations — called for the removal of my public artwork and circulated to more than 600 signatories in three days. The comment thread under the petition included a documented death threat and the comment "throw his camera in the river" — five years before Katherine Hennessey threw my phone into the Deerfield River on November 30, 2025.²⁴
The Greenfield Recorder published two front-page articles without contacting me for comment. The Bridge of Flowers Committee held secret Zoom meetings to coordinate the removal of my work without notifying me. Eight false police reports were filed, all dismissed. Three Harassment Prevention Orders were sought, all denied. On November 30, 2025, I was physically assaulted on a public sidewalk, struck more than thirty times while my arms were pinned, and my recording phone was thrown into the Deerfield River. Criminal charges are currently pending in Franklin County District Court.²⁵
None of the people who initiated or sustained that campaign checked the thirty-year anti-racist record before acting. The Black Stones of Africa — installed in the pavement of the Bridge of Flowers in 2011 as a tribute to my collaborator Paul Forth's biracial daughters — were three feet from the laminated sign somebody thumbtacked to the fence while calling me a racist. Nobody looked.
The Closed Epistemic System Defined
A closed epistemic system is a framework that processes counter-evidence as confirmation rather than as data requiring engagement. The framework cannot be wrong because wrongness itself has been defined as a manifestation of the thing the framework diagnoses. Disagreement proves fragility. Evidence proves complicity. The person presenting inconvenient data is not engaged. They are designated.
The designation serves a function. It converts the evidentiary challenge into a character indictment, which requires no engagement with the evidence. The data never enters the conversation. The conversation stays safe. The trend continues.
This mechanism is documented extensively in the psychological literature on groupthink and in the sociological literature on moral exclusion.²⁶ It is not unique to the racial justice context. It appears wherever a framework has sufficient institutional power to process dissent as threat rather than information. What is specific to this context is the combination of institutional power, the unfalsifiability of the central framework, and the demographic data that the framework has successfully kept out of mainstream discussion for fifty years while the trend documented in Section II continued to move in one direction.
IX. THE PERSONHOOD CONSISTENCY OBSERVATION
One observation worth noting, briefly, as a closing analytic point.
The advocacy documents cited in Section VII — from Pregnancy Justice, Legal Voice, the Network for Public Health Law — use the term "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" consistently and explicitly. The justification, stated by Pregnancy Justice in their own language note, is to honor the personhood of all people who can become pregnant regardless of gender identity.
The principle at work is personhood. Full, unqualified personhood for the entity carrying the pregnancy.
The same documents resist, comprehensively and with detailed legal argument, the personhood of the entity being carried.
Full personhood for the carrier. No personhood for the carried.
The principle of personhood is being applied selectively, and the selection follows ideological convenience rather than logical consistency. This is not a definitive argument for fetal personhood as a legal framework. It is an observation about the consistency with which the personhood principle is applied by the coalition most invested in its application.
X. CONCLUSION: THE CONVERGENCE AND THE ARITHMETIC
The central claim of this paper is not that John Sendelbach's conclusions are correct. The central claim is that those conclusions were independently reached by Black scholars, clergy, Supreme Court justices, civil rights advocates, and ordinary citizens examining the same data from radically different starting points across multiple decades — and that those conclusions have been consistently suppressed not through refutation but through designation.
Alveda King has been testifying before Congress about the demographic destruction of the Black community through abortion since the 1980s. Walter Hoye went to jail for making this argument on a public sidewalk in Oakland. Ryan Bomberger has documented the trend from CDC data for two decades. Clarence Thomas raised it from the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged, on the record, that population control ideology was present at the founding of the legal framework that produced it.
The question this paper raises is not whether every conclusion it contains is correct. Reasonable people can disagree about the moral weight of the demographic data. Reasonable people can disagree about the causes of the trend. Reasonable people can disagree about the legal implications of fetal personhood.
What is not a reasonable position is the refusal to engage the data at all.
A society confident in its principles welcomes scrutiny of whether it is applying those principles consistently. A society uncertain of its principles designates scrutiny as threat. The arithmetic in Section II has been available to anyone who wanted to examine it for fifty years. The scholars named in Section VI examined it and said what it showed. The movement that claims those communities as its constituency chose not to examine it or chose to ignore the scholars who did.
The argument nobody wanted to hear was not a racist argument. It was a consistency argument. It was the straightforward application of a stated moral principle — Black lives matter — to the available evidence about what has been happening to Black lives since 1973.
The evidence is in the CDC data. It has always been there. It will remain there regardless of how the designation falls.
The arithmetic is patient. It does not require permission to be true.
ENDNOTES
¹ The June 2020 events in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts, and the five-year campaign that followed are documented in full at johnsendelbach.com. No login. No fee. The complete archive includes police reports, court transcripts, video evidence, and medical records.
² Sendelbach, John F. The Guilt Industry: From Roots to Ruin. johnsendelbach.com, 2026.
³ Abort73.com racial breakdown methodology: draws on CDC Abortion Surveillance Reports with documented racial proportioning methodology for years and states with incomplete race reporting. Primary sources are CDC MMWR surveillance reports.
⁴ National Right to Life Committee cumulative estimate through 2023: approximately 65.4 million. Guttmacher Institute estimates cluster in the low-to-mid 60 million range through 2020. The 66 million figure is the midrange estimate used in this paper.
⁵ Abort73.com: "Based on the estimated 66 million abortions that have occurred in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that roughly 22 million of them were performed on black babies." Drawing on CDC published data for 1972, 1973, 1976, and 1980–2019.
⁶ US Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census: non-Hispanic Black population approximately 39.9 million.
⁷ CDC Abortion Surveillance Reports, longitudinal racial data 1970s–2010s, compiled in Abort73.com analysis: "The CDC reports that during the 1970s, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on Black women. That average rose to 30% in the 1980s, 34% in the 1990s, 36% in the 2000s, and 38% in the 2010s."
⁸ CDC Abortion Surveillance Report, most recent available data.
⁹ Abort73.com: "In the United States, Black children are aborted at four times the rate of white children; Hispanic children are aborted at one and a half times the rate."
¹⁰ BLMGNF financial disclosures and IRS Form 990, 2020–2022.
¹¹ BLMGNF IRS Form 990, fiscal year 2020.
¹² Real estate transaction records; reported by New York Post, Associated Press, and multiple outlets in 2021.
¹³ BLMGNF IRS Form 990, documented related-party transactions.
¹⁴ Property records reported by New York Post, 2021.
¹⁵ PBS NewsHour report on DOJ investigation, 2025.
¹⁶ Korn Ferry audit of Center for Antiracist Research, Boston University, 2023. Boston University announcement of charter non-renewal and center closure, June 2025.
¹⁷ Tometi's Twitter account and public statements, September 2015. News coverage of the National Black Theatre event, Harlem, September 2015.
¹⁸ Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. Interview with Emily Bazelon. New York Times Magazine, July 7, 2009.
¹⁹ Pregnancy Justice Legal Landscape: "Fetal Rights Established by Law or Judicial Decision." Updated May 28, 2025.
²⁰ Pregnancy Justice Legal Landscape: "Fetal Rights Embedded in State Abortion Restrictions." Updated September 24, 2024.
²¹ LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Alabama Supreme Court, February 2024.
²² Executive Order 14168, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," January 2025.
²³ Life at Conception Act, H.R. introduced 2025.
²⁴ Comment archive from the June 6, 2020 Facebook thread. Victoria Rolon: "I would throw his camera in the water." Documented in the author's archive at johnsendelbach.com.
²⁵ Commonwealth v. Catherine Hennessey, Docket 2641CR000158; Commonwealth v. Henry W. Batteau, Docket 2641CR000159. Both arraigned April 7, 2026, Greenfield District Court.
²⁶ Janis, Irving. Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, 1972. Opotow, Susan. "Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction." Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1990.
John F. Sendelbach is a metalworker, sculptor, and landscape designer with thirty years of permanent public installations across western Massachusetts. His complete archive, including the full manuscript of The Guilt Industry: From Roots to Ruin, is available at johnsendelbach.com. No login. No fee.
