> Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe

> Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe with Dobbs. I’m not aware of any state lawmakers in the US proposing to ban contraception in general. There have been proposals to ban ”abortifacient contraceptives”-although in those cases there is disagreement over whether certain contraceptive methods are “abortifacient” - which I think is mostly semantic, many of these methods have some (small but non-zero) probability of preventing implantation or causing post-implantation spontaneous abortion, which causes their opponents to label them as “abortifacient”; defenders disagree with using that word that way, and insist a contraceptive method should not be labelled “abortifacient” if spontaneous abortion is not the primary method of action (more a rare side effect). Putting those semantic disputes aside, there are methods of contraception which are universally agreed upon as being non-abortifacient, such as condoms. The laws struck down by Griswold were bans on contraception in general, not bans only on specific forms of it. Unless SCOTUS was really eager to overturn Griswold (Thomas is but I doubt Roberts and Kavanaugh are), SCOTUS can uphold those laws by distinguishing them from Griswold, by narrowing it, rather than overturning it altogether.