A Senate hearing on reproductive rights took an unexpected turn this week when Senator Josh Hawley questioned an obstetrician on the possibility of men becoming pregnant. The January 16th exchange,occurring before the Senate Health,Education,Labor & Pensions Committee,quickly became a focal point in the ongoing national debate over abortion access and evolving understandings of gender identity.The questioning drew immediate criticism from some who characterized it as a deliberately provocative line of inquiry intended to challenge established medical and scientific consensus.
A debate over reproductive rights in the United States took a contentious turn on January 16, 2026, when a physician faced sharp questioning from senators regarding the biological possibilities of pregnancy. The exchange occurred during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee.
Obstetrician Nisha Verma became the focus of scrutiny after Senator Josh Hawley pressed her on whether men could become pregnant. The questioning, which quickly became heated, centered on the evolving definitions of gender and the implications for reproductive healthcare.
“Can men get pregnant?” Hawley asked Verma during the hearing, according to reports. Verma responded by explaining that while individuals assigned male at birth do not have the biological capacity to carry a pregnancy, transgender men and non-binary individuals may be able to get pregnant depending on their anatomy.
The exchange highlights the increasingly complex and politically charged debate surrounding abortion access and reproductive rights in the U.S., particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The hearing underscores the deep divisions within the country on these issues and the challenges of navigating evolving medical understandings of sex and gender.
The questioning from Senator Hawley drew criticism from some quarters, who argued it was a deliberately provocative attempt to undermine the credibility of both Verma and the broader field of reproductive medicine. The incident is likely to further fuel the ongoing national conversation about reproductive healthcare and the rights of transgender and non-binary individuals.
