‘Can Men Get Pregnant?’: Josh Hawley, Doctor Lock Horns Over Gender and Science

What began as a hearing on abortion medication safety quickly turned into a pointed confrontation over language, biology and identity inside a US Senate committee room.

During a Senate Health, Education, Labour and Pensions Committee session titled "Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs," Senator Josh Hawley repeatedly pressed a single question to a medical expert seated before him: Can men get pregnant? The witness, Dr. Nisha Verma-an Indian-American OB-GYN and reproductive health adviser-did not give the yes-or-no answer Hawley demanded.

Instead, Dr. Verma returned again and again to her professional focus: patient care and medical evidence. She told senators that abortion pills are among the most studied medications in reproductive healthcare, backed by more than 100 peer-reviewed studies and used by over 7.5 million people in the US since approval in 2000. Political framing, she argued, should not override clinical science or the realities doctors see in exam rooms.

Hawley, however, framed the moment as a test of scientific integrity. Repeating his question several times, he said he was attempting to establish what he called a "biological reality," accusing Dr. Verma of avoiding a basic fact during a hearing centred on women's health. He later argued that acknowledging clear biological distinctions was essential to evaluating the risks of chemical abortion drugs.

As the exchange grew tense, Dr. Verma explained that reproductive healthcare serves patients who do not all identify as women. She described the senator's questioning as politically charged and said reducing complex medical experiences to a binary answer risked misrepresenting patients. "Yes-or-no questions like this are political tools," she said, adding that she would welcome a less polarised discussion outside the hearing format.

Hawley responded by broadening his critique, asserting that only women become pregnant and warning that debates over gender identity distracted from what he described as serious safety concerns. He cited data claiming abortion medication causes adverse health events in 11 per cent of cases-far higher, he said, than FDA labelling suggests-and accused Dr. Verma of undermining public trust in science.

Video clips of the exchange spread rapidly online, drawing strong reactions from both sides of the abortion debate. To supporters of Hawley, the moment underscored concerns about redefining biological terms. To supporters of Dr. Verma, it illustrated how ideological disputes can overshadow medical evidence and patient care.

By the time the hearing moved on, the divide was clear. One side insisted that biology must anchor abortion policy debates. The other argued that medicine cannot be separated from the lived realities of patients. The question-Can men get pregnant?-lingered well beyond the committee room, becoming a flashpoint in the wider cultural and political battle over reproductive rights in the United States.