Lincoln, in 1863: A restatement of American purpose:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
That purpose was codified in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment, 1868:
". . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The purpose of the original Constitution was to construct a workable republic. The Bill of Rights amendments added a second purpose, the protection of liberties. After the Civil War the country added a third purpose: Guaranteeing equality.
Equality has been a troubling goal of national purpose. It is easier to recite as a catechism of belief than it is to express in daily life. Humans don't have equal feelings about one another and people aren't equal in biology, social standing, or abilities. Americans typically love themselves and their families more than others, i.e. unequally. Americans seek opportunity. We help our kids "get ahead." Our whole capitalist economic system is built around striving and self-interest. Humans tend to view differences in a hierarchical manner. Some things are better than others, some things are good and bad, some clean and unclean, some are customary and some are not. And yet, notwithstanding all that, we are equal, supposedly.
The Supreme Court for the past 65 years has been described as "activist," especially by people who have disagreed with their decisions. In Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 the Court found that racial segregation was inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional. The very fact of segregation created implicit disparagement.
The Supreme Court in 1965 decided two more cases, Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. Both found constitutional rights that put issues beyond the power of legislatures to decide. Loving said the 14th Amendment guaranteed the right of people of different races to marry each other. Virginia and several other states prohibited it. The prohibition probably reflected the values of a majority of citizens at the time. The Court said that didn't matter.
Connecticut in that era had retained a multitude of "Blue Laws" that reflected the power of the Catholic Church in Connecticut politics. Even in 1971-73, when I lived in Connecticut, stores closed on Sundays for every item except milk, diapers, newspapers, and other things. States--Massachusetts, too--had laws regulating and sometimes prohibiting the use of contraception. The Supreme Court said that the private acts of couples in the "marital bed" were part of an umbra of privacy found in the 4th Amendment. Married people, at least, could get contraception.
These Court decisions were back in the news, challenged this week by senators questioning the addition of Judge Jackson to the Supreme Court. They cited as wrongly decided by an activist court their finding a constitutional right to use contraception, to marry outside one's race, to consensual homosexual acts, to same-sex marriage. Those are not the real target of the criticism. The real target is a constitutional right to abortion and the body of precedent before and after Roe v. Wade that guarantees the right to an abortion and later for homosexual rights.
People who think "the Court went too far," are in political ascendance. They argue those "rights" should be subject to popular majorities to regulate or prohibit. Abortion and voting rights are already on the way out in some states. Gender transition and the equality of homosexuals likely are next, in some states. Attitudes have moved at different paces. I suspect no state will try to outlaw interracial marriage, although some people and institutions find it distasteful. People will move to compatible states. National businesses will make business decisions on what state laws are intolerable to customers and employees. We will see boycotts and claims that national companies are acting like bullies.
Whatever happens with the Griswold decision, no state will try to outlaw contraception. That ship sailed.
Things would be different if males got pregnant:O)