“A Mockery of Science”: Senator Hawley Grills Doctor Who Refuses to Admit Men Cannot Get Pregnant in Explosive Senate Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a hearing room meant to be a sanctuary for facts, evidence, and rigorous inquiry, a stunning display of ideological evasion played out this week, leaving lawmakers and the public questioning the state of modern medical expertise. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) engaged in a heated and revealing exchange with Dr. Verma, a witness called to testify on reproductive health, over a question that, for millennia, would have been considered rhetorical: “Can men get pregnant?”

The interaction, which lasted nearly five minutes, stripped away the veneer of “expert testimony” to reveal a deep-seated reluctance among some in the medical community to affirm basic biological realities when they conflict with progressive gender theory. As Dr. Verma dodged, paused, and pivoted, Senator Hawley pressed on, exposing a chasm between political correctness and scientific truth that has now reached the highest levels of government oversight.

The Question That Stopped the Room

The confrontation began innocuously enough. Senator Hawley, seizing on a previous answer given to Senator Moody, turned his attention to Dr. Verma.

“Since you bring it up, why don’t we just start there,” Hawley began, his tone measured but direct. “Do you think that men can get pregnant?”

For most people outside the bubble of academic gender theory, the answer is a reflex: No. But for Dr. Verma, the question appeared to be a trap. She hesitated.

“I hesitated there because I wasn’t sure where the conversation was going or what the goal was,” she replied, attempting to deflect the premise of the inquiry. She spoke of taking care of patients with “different identities,” a common refrain in modern healthcare settings that prioritize inclusivity over biological precision.

But Hawley was not interested in identities; he was interested in biology.

“The goal is the truth,” he retorted. “So, can men get pregnant?”

“Science and Evidence Should Control”

The irony of the exchange was palpable. Minutes earlier, Dr. Verma had testified that “science and evidence should control, not politics.” Hawley used her own words as a bludgeon, testing whether she would adhere to that standard when faced with a politically charged biological fact.

“Let’s just test that proposition,” Hawley said. “Can men get pregnant?”

Dr. Verma continued to evade. “I take care of people with many identities… I do take care of people that don’t identify as women that can [get pregnant].”

She was carefully dancing around the terminology, avoiding the word “men” in the biological sense and instead focusing on “identities.” It was a semantic shell game designed to obfuscate the reality that only biological females possess the reproductive anatomy necessary for pregnancy.

When pressed again, she pivoted to an attack on the question itself. “I also think yes or no questions like this are a political tool,” she stated, effectively admitting that a direct answer would damage her political standing or ideological commitments.

A Mockery of Proceedings

Senator Hawley’s patience visibly wore thin. The refusal of a medical doctor to answer a basic anatomy question was, in his view, an insult to the committee.

“Doctor, let’s not make a mockery of this proceeding,” Hawley admonished. “This is about science and evidence… This is not a hypothetical question. This is not theoretical. That affects real people in their real lives.”

He reminded the witness that she was there as an expert. The credibility of her entire testimony hung on her ability to acknowledge fundamental facts. If she could not be trusted to identify the biological sex required for pregnancy, how could she be trusted on complex issues regarding abortion drugs or maternal health?

“I’m trying to test frankly your veracity as a medical professional and as a scientist,” Hawley declared.

The “Complexity” Defense

Dr. Verma attempted to retreat into the fog of “complexity,” a tactic often used to shut down debate on clear-cut issues.

“I think you’re trying to reduce the complexity of a lot…” she began.

“It’s not complex,” Hawley interrupted. “Male and female are two different things. There’s biological men and there’s biological women… This isn’t hard, Doctor. Can men get pregnant? Yes or no?”

The exchange highlighted a growing trend in institutional medicine where “complexity” is often cited to deny binary realities. By framing biological sex as a “complex experience,” activists and allied professionals seek to erase the distinctions that underpin everything from women’s sports to medical research.

Dr. Verma’s refusal to answer “no” was not just a personal quirk; it was an adherence to an ideology that views “biological man” and “biological woman” as outdated or offensive categories.

“Women Get Pregnant, Not Men”

Finally, Senator Hawley answered the question for her.

“For the record, it’s women who get pregnant, not men,” he stated firmly.

He pivoted to the broader implications of her evasion. The hearing was convened to discuss the safety of women, specifically regarding abortion drugs. Hawley cited data suggesting that these drugs cause adverse health events in 11% of cases—22 times greater than the FDA label indicates.

“You won’t even acknowledge the basic reality that biological men don’t get pregnant,” Hawley said. “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.”

This was the crux of the article: Credibility. In an era where “trust the science” has become a mantra, the public is increasingly skeptical of experts who seem to prioritize political allegiance over objective truth. When a doctor cannot admit that men cannot bear children, the term “science” loses its meaning.

Corrosive to the Constitution

Hawley’s critique went beyond biology; it touched on the legal and constitutional foundations of the country. He argued that the erasure of biological distinctions undermines the specific protections afforded to women.

“It is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality and should be treated and protected as such,” Hawley argued. “Your refusal to recognize women as women and men as men is deeply corrosive to science, to public trust, and yes to constitutional protections for women as women.”

By refusing to define the category of “woman,” proponents of gender ideology inadvertently dismantle the legal framework designed to protect women from discrimination. If anyone can be a woman, and if men can get pregnant, then the specific needs and vulnerabilities of biological females are erased from the law.

A Depressing Clarification

As his time expired, Senator Hawley offered a final, stinging assessment of the interaction.

“I’m glad we had this exchange because it is exceptionally clarifying,” he said. “It is also in many ways quite depressing.”

It was clarifying because it exposed the depth of ideological capture within the medical establishment. It was depressing because it signaled a breakdown in the shared reality necessary for a functioning society. If we cannot agree on who can get pregnant, how can we agree on healthcare policy, education, or basic rights?

The hearing ended with Hawley thanking the other witnesses for “protecting women and children” and “following the science,” a sharp contrast to his dismissal of Dr. Verma’s testimony.

The Aftermath

The video of the exchange has since gone viral, racking up millions of views and sparking intense debate across social media. For many Americans, it serves as a “emperor has no clothes” moment. It validates the suspicion that many institutions have been hijacked by a radical agenda that demands the denial of what is right in front of our eyes.

Dr. Verma’s hesitation—her claim that a yes or no question is a “political tool”—is a damning indictment of a profession that used to pride itself on objective reality. As the culture wars continue to heat up, this 5-minute clip will likely endure as a definitive example of the clash between woke ideology and common sense.

In the end, the question remains: If “following the science” leads to the conclusion that men can get pregnant, perhaps it is time to ask whose science we are actually following.