A Senate hearing meant to examine the safety and consequences of chemical abortion drugs took an unexpected turn Wednesday when a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist declined to say whether men can get pregnant, prompting sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers and raising broader questions about ideology versus science in public policy debates.
The exchange unfolded during the “Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs” hearing, where Dr. Nisha Verma appeared as a witness invited by Democrats to argue in favor of mifepristone, the abortion drug at the center of the discussion. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley pressed Verma repeatedly with a direct and simple question: “Can men get pregnant?”
Rather than answer, Verma questioned Hawley’s intent. “I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is,” she said, declining to give a yes-or-no response. Hawley explained that the purpose was straightforward. “The goal is just to establish a biological reality,” he said, again asking whether men can get pregnant.
The moment followed a similar line of questioning from Sen. Ashley Moody, who had earlier posed the same question to Verma. Moody said her question was meant to highlight concerns that men were obtaining abortion pills, but Verma refused to answer her as well.
As Hawley continued pressing for clarity, Verma again avoided a direct response, instead saying that she treats people with many “identities.” She told the committee that she provides care for individuals who do not identify as women, while still declining to state whether biological men are capable of pregnancy.
Verma urged lawmakers to “follow the science and the evidence” when evaluating mifepristone but did not address the scientific reality of male reproductive biology. She accused Hawley of oversimplifying what she described as the complexity of people’s lives.
“I think you’re trying to reduce the complexity of a lot of people’s lives,” she told the senator.
Hawley pushed back, arguing that acknowledging biological differences between men and women is neither political nor polarizing. “It is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality and should be treated and protected as such,” he said. “That is not polarizing, that is the truth.”
Verma dismissed the repeated yes-or-no question as a “political tool,” saying such questions contribute to polarization rather than productive dialogue. She said she would prefer a conversation that did not come from what she described as a polarized place.
Hawley, visibly frustrated, questioned how Verma could present herself as a credible scientific voice while refusing to acknowledge what he called a basic biological fact. “We are here in a hearing about science, and about women, and for the record, it’s women who get pregnant, not men,” he said. He added that her refusal to acknowledge the difference between biological men and biological women undermined her claims to scientific authority.
Verma insisted she is a “person of science” and maintained that polarized language does not serve the American people.
The exchange came amid a broader pattern in Washington this week, as basic definitions of biology were also debated during a Supreme Court hearing involving men competing in women’s sports. In that case, an attorney struggled to define the word “sex” when asked by Justice Samuel Alito.
As the Senate hearing concluded, Hawley said the exchange was revealing but disheartening. “I am glad we had this exchange because it’s exceptionally clarifying,” he said. “It is also in many ways quite depressing.”
