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.
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.
