> But 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 tr

> But 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? There is no such thing as tradeoff free medicine. Things we can ingest without unusual side effects have a special name in medicine: food. IUDs are, on balance, considered a much safer form of birth control. They do not flood the user's bloodstream entirely with hormones (rather delivering it directly to the area of effect), and the treatment can be quickly discontinued in the case of the rare negative reaction. In many cases, negative reactions to IUDs are indicators of other more severe reproductive organ issues like Endometriosis. For other reproductive issues, IUDs can actually be proscribed as a treatment. The actual risk profile for IUDs is quite favorable. The actual risks of pregnancy are much larger than people like to talk about, and most women (even young women) take over a year to physically heal from their ordeal carrying and delivering a child and that's entirely ignoring the social and economic impacts of said pregnancy. Most importantly, IUDs have fantastically high compliance rates because they are always on and most of their failure conditions are obvious (results in falling out). By contrast, the mechanical failure of a condom or diaphragm is often difficult to catch in the heat of the moment and human factors come into play with pill compliance. Of course, knowingly or not, your actual cause here is to be Sargent Rubiquity of the Womb Police. I don't believe for an instant that any logic or compassion motivates your post.