In keeping with the theme of the OP, I think there is-will be–a political motive for this. As R Sundstrom pointed out in “the Browning of America”, the demographics are skewing diversification (i.e. people-who-don’t-look-like-us are having too many babies) There’s the fear of Whites losing majority status, since so many couples are DINK (double income no kids) or having fewer kids, while POC tend to be more fertile, hence loss of hegemony. Note that MO idiot AG, Bailey, is Trumpeting need for more children, hence more voters. With Trump’s "Ethnic Cleansing program, and loss of abortion so more babies being born, I could see them banning contraceptives as part of it. Handmaids Tale anyone?
Also, American white nationalists tend to be of the “one drop rule” persuasion.
The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of Black African ancestry (“one drop” of “black blood”)[1][2] is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.
This artificially lowers the birth rate for “white people” because they arbitrarily define those births as not counting as white people. You could theoretically end up with a society that ethnically looks exactly like the modern US does in a few hundred years, but hasn’t a single person in it they’d consider “white”.
It’s all very stupid, but they believe it so it’s also dangerous.
There is very definitely a slice of White Nationalism that is actively anti-contraception.
Yeah, but also they’re stupid and tend to forget where they drew their lines in the sand a few decades ago.
Observe, for example, the eventual “whiteification” of ethnic groups like Irish and Italians, whom a lot of early-20th-century white nationalists would have sworn up and down didn’t count as “white people”. And look at how German and Scandinavian surnames are now accepted as “normal” white American nomenclature, when 150 years ago or so they would have automatically triggered a bunch of dialect-accent “comedy” about “Yumping Yiminy” and “mine vife”.
My WAG is that the next “whiteification” shift will be that of South Asian-Americans, maybe in tandem with the “white of Hispanic origin” category. Today’s white nationalists will fume and bellow that those “aren’t real white people”, but their great-grandchildren will be lumping “Rivera” and “Patel” in with “Schmidt” and “Jensen” as completely characteristically American names.
It took longer than you think for such groups to be fully accepted, as is shown in the 1970 movie Love Story which showed a man from a rich English-ancestry man being rejected by his father for marrying a working-class woman of Italian ancestry.
Wellllll, that’s complicating the issue with religion and social class, as well. As the protagonist asks his father in that movie, “What irks you the most, that she’s Catholic or poor?” Nobody makes any claims about her not being white.
Or there just won’t be anyone left who isn’t “white” according to them after they are done with their ethnic cleansing campaign.
have you read “The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race’ by Bruce Baum which tracks this classification path?
No, looks very interesting!