A congressional hearing focused on abortion pill safety took an unexpected turn Wednesday when a reproductive health physician declined to provide a direct answer to questions about pregnancy and biological sex, leading to a contentious exchange with Republican senators.
The incident occurred during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing examining the safety protocols surrounding medication-based abortion procedures. Dr. Nisha Verma, an obstetrician-gynecologist serving as a senior advisor to Physicians for Reproductive Health, found herself at the center of controversy when she avoided giving straightforward responses to questions about the biological realities of pregnancy.
The answer to the question is NO.
Men cannot get pregnant. This is the reality democrats would have us living in if they got full control of our institutions. Biological reality and TRUTH would become victims to their feelings.
The right has to be the adult in the room and… pic.twitter.com/BEIzdY3hxb
— Jeffery Mead (@the_jefferymead) January 15, 2026
Questioning Leads to Tense Exchange
The line of questioning began with Senator Ashley Moody of Florida, who asked Dr. Verma whether men could become pregnant. Rather than providing a direct biological answer, Verma appeared hesitant and avoided addressing the question directly. This prompted follow-up questions from Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who pressed for clarity on the matter.
When Hawley continued the questioning, Dr. Verma explained her reluctance to answer, stating she was uncertain about the direction of the conversation and its intended purpose. She emphasized that her medical practice includes caring for patients with various gender identities, though she acknowledged treating many women in her role as an OB-GYN.
The Missouri senator responded by framing his questions as an attempt to establish what he termed “biological reality,” referencing Verma’s earlier statements about the importance of science and evidence over political considerations in medical discussions.
Professional Perspectives Clash
Dr. Verma eventually acknowledged that she provides medical care to individuals who do not identify as women but characterized the yes-or-no format of the questioning as a political strategy rather than a genuine scientific inquiry. She argued that the senator was attempting to oversimplify complex issues surrounding gender identity and reproductive health.
Just so we're clear: Men can’t get pregnant.
Saying they can is actually offensive to women. pic.twitter.com/b5jI38HUQj
— Kristan Hawkins (@KristanHawkins) October 8, 2025
The physician accused Hawley of approaching the topic in a polarized manner, suggesting that binary questions failed to capture the nuances of modern reproductive healthcare. This response appeared to frustrate the Republican senator, who ultimately provided his own answer to the question, stating definitively that women, not men, are capable of pregnancy.
Hawley questioned Dr. Verma’s credibility as a scientific authority, expressing skepticism about her claims to base medical opinions on scientific evidence while simultaneously avoiding what he characterized as a fundamental biological question.
Broader Context of Abortion Medication Debate
The heated exchange occurred within the larger framework of ongoing national discussions about abortion medication safety and accessibility. The hearing was convened amid tensions between pro-life advocacy groups and the current administration regarding the regulation and study of abortion pills.
Recent developments have intensified these debates, particularly following the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a generic version of mifepristone in October. This medication forms part of a two-drug protocol commonly used for medication-based pregnancy termination, alongside misoprostol.
According to data from the Guttmacher Institute, nearly two-thirds of all abortion procedures in the United States are now conducted through medication rather than surgical intervention. This statistic underscores the significance of ongoing policy discussions surrounding these pharmaceutical options.
What an extraordinary exchange. Senator Josh @HawleyMO asks a medical doctor if men can get pregnant.
She won’t answer the question but starts hemming and hawing about how “complex” it is and how Sen. Hawley is being divisive.
She’s a doctor!
pic.twitter.com/HPxgqOTrGH— Denny Burk (@DennyBurk) January 14, 2026
Safety Concerns and Administrative Response
Pro-life organizations have consistently advocated for more comprehensive safety studies of Mifepristone, citing concerns about potential complications, though such adverse events are statistically rare. Conversely, reproductive rights advocates point to extensive research spanning multiple decades that supports the medication’s safety profile.
Mifepristone has maintained FDA approval for use in the United States since 2000 and serves medical purposes beyond pregnancy termination, including treatment for Cushing’s syndrome. The medication’s long history of clinical use has generated substantial safety data, though political perspectives on its regulation remain divided.
Current Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary have committed to conducting additional safety evaluations of Mifepristone, responding to calls from various stakeholder groups for enhanced oversight.
Political and Legal Dimensions
The questioning during Wednesday’s hearing reflects broader cultural and political tensions surrounding gender identity, reproductive rights, and the intersection of medical practice with social issues. These debates have become increasingly prominent in congressional hearings and public policy discussions.
The personal stakes for some participants in these debates are notable, including Senator Hawley’s family connections to abortion-related legal challenges. His wife, Erin Hawley, has been actively involved in litigation targeting abortion medication through her legal practice, adding another layer of context to the senator’s pointed questioning.
This family connection illustrates how reproductive rights issues often intersect with personal and professional relationships among political figures, potentially influencing the tone and direction of policy discussions.
Implications for Healthcare Policy
The viral nature of Wednesday’s exchange highlights the challenges facing medical professionals who testify before Congress on politically sensitive topics. Healthcare providers increasingly find themselves navigating a complex terrain where clinical expertise intersects with cultural debates about gender, identity, and reproductive autonomy.
For policymakers, such hearings raise questions about how to balance scientific inquiry with political messaging, particularly when addressing issues that affect diverse patient populations with varying healthcare needs and identity considerations.
The incident also demonstrates the ongoing evolution of medical practice in response to changing social understanding of gender and identity, creating new considerations for healthcare providers serving transgender and non-binary patients.
As these debates continue, the medical community faces the challenge of maintaining professional standards while adapting to diverse patient needs and navigating an increasingly polarized political environment surrounding reproductive healthcare access and regulation.