I think just about 100% of people would agree with you (me too) if you said that about "family planning" or even "birth control." Family planning or birth control are broadly-defined terms which could include any action to avoid or achieve or space pregnancies, including non-contraceptive means.
Some married couples without a doubt have a serious reason to want to postpone or avoid pregnancy; this is truly a private decision which only they can make; and these couples should choose their sexual behavior accordingly.
But contraception, specifically, treats normal fertility as a defect, as something to be medicated or doctored or "fixed" with drugs or surgery. And its long-term effect (as we have certainy seen in the last 40 years) is to facilitate nonmarital intercourse, vastly lessen the emotional significance of sexual intimacy, and create a sex-lite milieu which ultimately undermines marriages.
It is directly implicated in the huge increase of non-marriage and of marriage breakup which happened largely over the last 40 years, i.e. exactly coinciding with the contraceptive revolution.
If you don't buy that, you should read the Playboy History of the Sexual Revolution (that's not the exact title, but I can't find it right now) which makes the case in an absolutely devastating manner.
It all comes down to what William Smith, the guy from SIECUS, said disapprovingly in the article: "The linking of abortion and contraception is indicative of a larger agenda, which is putting sex back into the box, as something that happens only within marriage..." Mr. Smith doesn't like that idea, but conservatives interested in conserving marriage, conserving families and conserving our nations' future, are increasingly realizing what's at stake.
And stimulants treat normal fatigue as a defect, and analgesics treat normal nerve stimuli as a defect. Your point?