Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for

Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?" The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect. Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406002897 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600026994 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general) You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy. Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.