After Abortion: Why Birth Control Rights Are the Next Target

The Legal Foundation Under Contraception

The right to contraception is grounded in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law prohibiting married couples from using birth control. The ruling rested on the concept of a constitutional right to privacy — an unenumerated right found in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights.

This is the same constitutional foundation — unenumerated rights and substantive due process — that the Dobbs decision attacked when overturning Roe v. Wade. In his Dobbs concurrence, Justice Thomas explicitly called for the court to "reconsider" Griswold alongside Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex intimacy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage).

This is not a slippery slope argument. It is a direct statement from a sitting Supreme Court justice.

The Policy Level Attacks Already Underway

While the Supreme Court has not moved on Griswold, state-level and federal policy changes are already affecting contraceptive access:

Title X funding cuts. Title X is the federal family planning program that funds contraception access for low-income Americans, primarily through Planned Parenthood clinics. The Trump administration has reimposed restrictions that effectively defunded Planned Parenthood from Title X, removing contraception access from millions of low-income patients.

Abstinence-only requirements. Federal funding for sex education programs has been conditioned on abstinence-only approaches that exclude information about contraception — even though abstinence-only education has been consistently shown to be ineffective at reducing teen pregnancy.

Employer exemptions. The administration has expanded the ability of employers and insurers to exclude contraception from health coverage on religious or moral grounds — which the ACA had previously required to be covered without cost-sharing.

IUD and Plan B conflation. In multiple states, antiabortion legislation defines pregnancy as beginning at fertilization rather than implantation, which could legally classify IUDs and Plan B as abortifacients rather than contraceptives — making them subject to abortion restrictions.

Who Gets Hurt

Attacks on contraceptive access disproportionately affect lower-income women who rely on publicly funded family planning services. Wealthy women with good insurance and access to private healthcare are minimally affected. This is a pattern consistent with reproductive rights restrictions generally: those with resources can always find access; those without resources bear the entire cost.

FAQ

Is contraception constitutionally protected? Yes, under Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). However, the legal doctrine underlying Griswold is the same substantive due process approach that the Dobbs decision criticized. Justice Thomas explicitly identified Griswold as a case to revisit.

Can states ban contraception? Currently, no — Griswold prohibits it. But if the Supreme Court were to overturn Griswold, states would regain authority to restrict contraception, as some did before 1965.

What is the difference between contraception and abortion under the law? Contraception prevents pregnancy; abortion terminates an existing pregnancy. This distinction is medically and legally clear. However, some state laws defining pregnancy as beginning at fertilization have the potential to classify certain contraceptive methods (IUDs, Plan B) as abortifacients under their legal definitions.