Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/15/2026 2:46:46 AM PST by Morgana
In a Wednesday Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing regarding the safety of abortion pills, an OBGYN refused to say whether men can get pregnant. The question was first asked to Dr. Nisha Verma by Senator Ashley Moody.
"Ms. Verma," Moody asked, "can men get pregnant?"
Verma first corrected Moody, saying "Dr. Verma," before responding to the question with "Um, I mean..." and smiling without answering properly.
Senator Josh Hawley took up the question and asked Verma again, "Dr. Verma, I wasn't sure I understood your answer to Sen. Moody a moment ago, do you think that men can get pregnant?"
"I hesitated there because I wasn’t sure whether the conversation was going or what the goal was," Verma replied. "I mean, I do take care of patients with different identities I take care of many women. I take care of people with different identities, and so that’s where I paused. I think—yeah, I wasn’t sure where you were going with that."
Hawley asked again, saying "the goal is just the truth, can men get pregnant?"
And again Verma declined to answer, saying "again, the reason I paused there is I'm not really sure of the goal of the question—"
Hawley said, "the goal is just to establish a biological reality. 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?"
She again said "I take care of people with many identities, but um I take care of many women that can get pregnant, I do take care of people that don't identify as women that—"
"Can men get pregnant?" Hawley asked.
Verma would not answer the question. Hawley pressed again. Verma replied "I totally agree science and evidence should guide medicine—" As Hawley continued seeking an answer from the OBGYN who refused to acknowledge basic facts, Verma said "I also think yes no questions like this are a political tool."
Hawley replied, "yes no questions are about the truth, doctor. Let’s not make a mockery of this proceeding. This is about science and evidence. And I’m asking you, you know, 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, and you’ve been telling us that you follow—right, you’re a doctor, and you follow the science and the evidence. So I just want to know, based on the science, can men get pregnant? That’s a yes or no question. It really is."
Verma began to accuse Hawley of trying to "reduce the complexity of" the situation, with Hawley saying, "It’s not complex. I’m trying to get an answer, and I’m trying to test, frankly, your veracity as a medical professional and as a scientist." He pressed the question again.
"I think you’re also conflating male with—" Verma began, with Hawley cutting in, "no, I’m not conflating male and female. They’re two different things. There’s biological men and there’s biological women." Yet again, he asked Verma if men can get pregnant.
They continued to go back and forth, with Verma telling Hawley she’d "be more than happy to have a conversation... that is not coming from a place of trying to be polarizing and pushing." Hawley said he was not trying to be polarizing, adding, "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."
"We are here about the safety of women, and the science shows that this abortion drug causes adverse health events in 11 percent of cases, that’s 22 times greater than the FDA label, and other facts you haven’t acknowledged, and yet you won’t even acknowledge the basic reality that biological men don’t get pregnant, that there’s a difference between biological men and biological women."
"I just I don't know how we can take you seriously and your claims to be a person of science, if you won't level with this on this basic issue, I thought we were past all of this. Frankly, I can't believe we're still here talking about this."
Verma said she is a "person of science" and someone "who’s here to represent the complex experiences of my patients, and I don’t think polarizing language or questions serve that goal. I don’t think they serve the American people."
Hawley replied, "it is not polarizing to say that there is a scientific difference between men and women, and I want this to be clear and for the record, it is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality and should be treated and protected as such. That is not polarizing. That is truth. It is also, by the way, the United States Constitution, which offers unique protections to women in a variety of circumstances as women, and 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."
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
There’s nothing being politicized. If a medical doctor cannot truthfully answer this simple question, they cannot be trusted.
Maybe rephrase the question to this demented Doctor: What internal organs of a biological male would support the conception, gestation, and delivery of a baby?
I think we maybe DID have a doctor that thought that way & we DID change doctors.
She knows the correct answer, any 12 year old knows the answer. But these people are so full of themselves and are never going to admit when they are wrong. Apparently there is a lot of money in lying.
The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1920, granted women the right to vote by prohibiting states and the federal government from denying suffrage based on sex, culminating a decades-long women's suffrage movement. It states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex". This landmark amendment, often called the "Susan B. Anthony Amendment," was a major step towards full political equality, though barriers remained for women of color until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Funny, they didn't have to define what a woman was to pass this amendment. Careful what you wish for.
Or what organs of a female can impregnate a male if a male could be impregnated?
Seriously, I find it hard to believe that in the year of 2026 the difference between a male and a female are in question. It has been known for thousands of years. And since the discovery of chromosomes, There is xx and xy. Period.
I didn't think she was good at it at all. She came off as a babbling idiot. The medical board should take away her license to practice.
I wish someone had asked her if she were a woman.
Now that would be something. I could just imagine the dialog:
Senator: “Are you a woman?”
Doctor: Yes.
Senator: Prove it.
Admitting you know they are not really men is an act of disloyalty.
Party loyalty above all.
And if they can get you to affirm something you know in your heart is untrue, they win.
As are most "experts". Whenever someone is presented as "an expert", you can be sure that most, if not all, of what they say will be completely wrong, or simply disingenuous b.s. You could fill a very large book with the list of things "experts" have been 100% wrong about.
The question should be; “Can a person with XY chromosomes get pregnant”.
She just showed them (and herself) for what they really are.
GREAT QUESTION, but she would’ve evaded answering that one, too.
And leftists can’t understand why normal people don’t trust medical experts anymore....
Dr. needs her medical license pulled.
you got the question somewhat wrong, it only can work with M-M then the offspring is a massive BM delivered in the usual manner...
It’s nonsensical and needs to stop.
It is a hardline to be drawn between kindness to those with mental illness, and actually enabling their delusions. Malpractice on the patient side, and fraud if charging an insurance carrier for treatment to a male that simply that cannot apply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.