If you’re given almost four years to come up with an acceptable answer to a question that should be obvious, you’d think you’d maybe do a bit better than Dr. Nisha Verma did on Wednesday.
To understand how fatuous and avoidable Verma’s viral moment of infamy is, we have to backtrack to March of 2022. That’s when Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was appearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of her confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court.
She was asked to provide a definition of what a woman was. Simple, no?
“I’m not a biologist,” was the best that Jackson could manage.
SEN. BLACKBURN: “Can you provide a definition of the word ‘woman’?”
JACKSON: “No, I can’t”
BLACKBURN: “You can’t?”
JACKSON: “I’m not a biologist” pic.twitter.com/i7Rg83z5Y4
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 23, 2022
That clip has taken on a whole lore of its own, particularly as Justice Jackson makes a fool of herself on the biggest transgender case before the court this session, regarding whether individual states can ban boys from playing in girls’ school sports. But that’s taking place on a different part of Capitol Hill this week.
On Wednesday, Verma appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to testify about the safety of the abortion drug mifepristone. Verma was a witness called by Democrats.
An obstetrician-gynecologist in Atlanta, according to Newsweek, she is also an adjunct assistant professor at the Emory Clinic School of Medicine in Atlanta. On paper, at least, it seems like she would be familiar with the physical reality of the female body.
But when it comes to politics, clearly it’s a different story.
During the hearing, Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley asked Verma if men can get pregnant. Verma said she didn’t know why he was asking the question.
“The goal is just to establish a biological reality,” Hawley said. “You just said a moment ago that science and evidence should control, not politics. So, let’s just test that proposition: Can men get pregnant?”
What ensued would be funny, were it not so serious.
“I think there are people of many identities,” Verma responded.
Yes, but: “Can men get pregnant?” Hawley asked.
“I take care of many women that can get pregnant. I do take care of people that don’t identify as women,” she said.
“Let me just remind you, you testified a moment ago: Science and evidence should control, not politics,” Hawley said. “Do science and evidence tell us that men can get pregnant? Biological men — can they get pregnant?
Verma, with a pause: “I also think yes-no questions like this are a political tool.”
A political tool? In a congressional hearing? Who would have heard of such a thing? And evading a yes or no answer is also clearly not a political tool. (I’ll give you a minute to wipe off the sarcasm that’s dripping from that sentence.)
Anyhow, now was time for the Perry Mason moment that Sen. Hawley had richly earned himself.
“No, yes-no questions are about the truth, doctor,” he said. “Let’s not make a mockery of this proceeding. This is about science and evidence. I’m asking you: The United States Supreme Court just heard arguments yesterday at great length on this question. This is not a hypothetical question, this is not theoretical. It affects real people in their real lives, and you’re here as an expert called by the other side as an expert …
“So, I just want to know, based on the science: Can men get pregnant? That’s a yes-or-no question. It really is, I think.”
Verma’s response: “I think you’re trying to reduce the complexity of a life.”
This idiocy earned Hawley a second Perry Mason moment:
🚨 HOLY CRAP. This actually just happened on Capitol Hill.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY: “Can men get pregnant?”
LIBERAL DR. VERMA: “I’m not sure what the goal of the question is.”
HAWLEY: “The goal is to establish a biological reality. Can men get pregnant?”
VERMA: “I take care of… pic.twitter.com/uzYjGJuZmH
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 14, 2026
“I think it is extraordinary that 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.
“We are here about the safety of women, and science that shows this abortion drug causes adverse health events in 11 percent of cases — that’s 22 times greater than the FDA label, another fact you haven’t acknowledged — and you won’t even acknowledge the basic reality that biological men don’t get pregnant.
“There is a difference between biological men and biological women. I just don’t know how we can take you seriously, and your claims to be a person of science, if you won’t level with us on this basic issue. I thought we were past all of this, frankly. I can’t believe we are still here talking about this.”
What I can’t believe is that, given almost four years, Verma came before Congress with a “dog ate my homework” answer to the obvious question of what a woman is and whether they’re the ones that can get pregnant.
I mean, I know her position would be a lie and an insult to science, but she could have at least tried. Put in some effort if you’re going to dissemble about whether you can pick your gender and then declaim that you represent science and medicine.
And yes, Sen. Hawley was right: I thought we were all past this. But Verma put herself out there as an emissary of The Science™, then took the simplest yes-no question that can be posed and insisted it wasn’t really binary, even though it was. It turned her into a looping mess.
If this is the best The Science™ has to offer us, no wonder “trust the science” has become a punchline more than a mantra. We now have medical doctors who can’t answer questions that 7-year-olds could answer 10 years ago.
If there was ever summary evidence that a doctor’s license should be revoked given during public testimony outside a court of law, this was it.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
