The logic of your argument could go either way. If it's wrong that the government fails to pursue reproductive control, then by analogy, it would be wrong for the government to fail to pursue gun control.
The question of reproductive control can be re-framed: "What sort of people should there be?" This lays the eugenic roots of such ideas bare, and show why we should approach interference in this realm with caution.
What sort of moral question underlies restrictions on guns? "What sort of person should be allowed to own an item that can more easily end a life than a fist or a knife?"
How about bitcoin? "What sort of person would have access to a decentralised non-fiat currency?" I know many governments would answer "No one!", but I would argue the exact opposite.
Either way, the moral problems that underlie reproductive control, gun control, and access to bitcoin are quite different, which makes me think that your analogy perhaps isn't that strong, and hence that we needn't accept your conclusion.
This is not about wrong or right. This is about being consistent. If you are pro regulation then you should support all kind of regulation. If you are against regulation, even for one thing then you stop being intellectually honest.
I agree that we should aim for consistency in situations that are in analogous. My point is that, when it comes to things we might regulate, not all things are identical in effect or moral import, therefore there is no inconsistency with regulating some things and not others.
I could say: "If you are anti-regulation, then you should be against all kinds of regulation, and that if you support any regulation then you stop being intellectually honest". If you stop and think, this potentially has some pretty extreme implications.
I think that weed shouldn't be regulated, but you know what, I'm OK with the fact that it's actually pretty hard to purchase hydrogen-bombs or VX gas. If that makes me intellectually dishonest, then so be it.