"Connecticut sought to promote marital fidelity and stable families by discouraging attempts to avoid the possible consequences of non-marital sexual relations through the use of contraceptives. Prominent judges in Connecticut recognized the legitimacy of these purposes, and the state’s supreme court upheld the laws against several constitutional challenges from 1940 to 1964"

And Rs are, I guess, standing against that court case decision of a Constitutional privacy right expansive enough to include contraception by voting against achieving the end goal of protecting contraception via legislation rather than Supreme Court judges (that part doesn't make sense to me other than if you actually did agree that the policy is not necessarily a bad idea.)

[Post edited by hoodeyo at 07/26/2022 1:14PM]