University Anti-Condom Policy Influenced By Dumpster-Baby Lobby

LEAVEY–The heated debate over Georgetown’s controversial anti-condom stance was reignited this past week as sources revealed the significant role lobbyists for the dumpster-baby industry played in shaping University policy on the subject.

Though administrators have long asserted that the University policy banning the sale of condoms on campus was designed solely to conform with the Vatican’s stance against artificial means of contraception, recent reports identifying the presence of dumpster-baby lobbyists at high-level meetings regarding the policy have called this impartiality into question.

While the lucrative and influential dumpster-baby industry–which includes the nation’s garbage collectors, dumpster manufacturers, and landfill operators–has long been identified as a primary opponent of greater condom availability across university campuses nationwide, these latest reports represent the first conformation of “big dumpster baby’s” long-suspected influence on Georgetown’s administration.

Sources from within in the meetings in question stated that, while no money changed hands, lobbyists plied administrators with countless gifts, including industry-branded shirts, pens, and miniature novelty dumpsters. When asked for comment, representatives for the lucrative and influential National Association of Discarded Infants (NADI) acknowledged that the sale of condoms represents a direct threat to their stated goal of “ensuring that our great nation’s dumpsters remain filled to the brim with the bodies of discarded infants,” but denied having any undue influence upon deliberations of University policy.

“We were simply present to serve as the voice of the millions of hardworking Americans whose livelihoods depend on the steady supply of fetuses into our country’s dumpsters,” said lobbyist Marc Livingstone. “The University may not be our biggest market, but having to tell even one garbage man or woman that the next discarded fetus may be their last is one too many.”

“We wholeheartedly agree with the University that using a condom is throwing away a precious human life. And if you’re going to throw away a precious human life, why not do it in a dumpster where it will support the men and women of our industry who need those unwanted lives to put food on their families’ tables?”, Livingstone went on to add.

Many students, however, expressed outrage at lobbyists’ involvement. “I’ve always been against the University’s anti-condom policy,” said Junior Kacy Richardson (MSB ’11), “but it disgusts me even more to know that they put a decision that affects my body into the money-grubbing, placenta-stained hands of ‘big dumpster baby.’”

A statement released by University administrators, while acknowledging the presence of lobbyists at high-level policy discussions, insisted that “any lobbyists attending policy meetings did so in an informational capacity only” and that “any resemblance between University policies and those advocated by said lobbyists are purely coincidental.”

University President Jack DeGioia echoed the sentiment, saying that dumpster-baby lobbyists “had no impact on our final decision, which was made with only the highest virtues of Cura Personalis in mind. That this decision may prove beneficial to one of our nation’s most vital industries represents nothing more than a happy coincidence.”