A Senate hearing on abortion policy turned tense on Wednesday after Senator Josh Hawley pressed an obstetrics-gynaecology and reproductive health adviser over whether men can become pregnant, prompting a sharp exchange over science, gender identity and medical expertise.The confrontation took place during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labour and Pensions (HELP) Committee titled “Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs” at the Dirksen Senate Office Building.Dr Nisha Verma, an Indian-American OB-GYN and senior adviser to Physicians for Reproductive Health, appeared as a Democratic witness and defended the safety of abortion medication.She told lawmakers that abortion pills have been widely studied and safely used for decades, citing more than 100 peer-reviewed studies.According to Verma, over 7.5 million people in the United States have used medication abortion since it was approved in 2000, and politically driven restrictions are causing harm to patients.Sen. Hawley: “Can men get pregnant?”Dr. Nisha Verma: “I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is.”Sen. Hawley: “The goal is just to establish a biological reality…Can men get pregnant?”pic.twitter.com/exjxLqJBTC— America (@america) January 14, 2026During questioning, Hawley repeatedly asked Verma to give a yes-or-no answer to the question, “Can men get pregnant?” Verma declined to respond directly, saying she treats patients with diverse gender identities and arguing that such questions are often used as political tools rather than scientific inquiries.Hawley insisted the issue was one of “biological reality” and accused Verma of refusing to acknowledge basic scientific facts. “For the record, it’s women who get pregnant and not men,” he said, adding that her response undermined public trust in science and weakened protections for women.Verma defended her position, stating that she is guided by science while also recognising the complex experiences of her patients. She argued that polarised language does not serve medical care or public health.The exchange highlighted broader national divisions over abortion access, gender identity, and the role of science in policymaking.