“I treat people with many identities.”
In an incredible Senate hearing meant to address the dangers of abortion pills sold online without proper oversight, a Democratic witness turned the spotlight on herself by refusing to acknowledge that only women can get pregnant.
Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN tapped by Democrats, evaded direct questions from Republicans, prioritizing “identities” over scientific fact. This exchange highlights how insane woke ideology has infiltrated even medical testimony, undermining protections for women and enabling potential abuse through lax regulations on chemical abortions.
The hearing exposed real risks, like men coercing women into abortions by easily obtaining pills online—no in-person checks required. Yet Verma couldn’t—or wouldn’t—affirm basic truths, leaving observers questioning how such “experts” hold medical licenses in the first place.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee convened on Wednesday to examine the safety of mifepristone, the abortion pill increasingly distributed via mail and telehealth.
Republicans highlighted cases of coercion, including one where a male physician forced pills on his girlfriend after she refused a spiked drink. Senators also shared stories of abusive partners exploiting online access to these drugs, with one staffer nearly ordering pills under a male name like “Michael” to prove the point.
But it was an unbelievable exchange between Senator Josh Hawley and Dr. Nisha Verma that garnered all the attention. Verma serves as a senior advisor to Physicians for Reproductive Health, an organization advocating for abortion access. She’s a board-certified OB-GYN and abortion provider who has testified before Congress previously.
According to her profile, Verma is also a medical school professor, but her reluctance to address straightforward biology raises serious doubts about her adherence to evidence-based medicine. It’s a stark example of ideology trumping science.
The fireworks started when Sen. Ashley Moody (R-FL) pressed Verma on the risks of men obtaining abortion pills to harm women. “Can men get pregnant?” Moody asked.
Verma responded, “I treat people with many identities.”
Unsatisfied, Hawley (R-MO) took over, repeatedly seeking clarity. “Can men get pregnant?” Hawley demanded.
“I’m not sure what the goal of the question is,” Verma replied.
Hawley clarified: “The goal is to establish a biological reality. Can men get pregnant?”
Verma doubled down: “I take care of people with many identities.”
Hawley persisted: “Can men get pregnant?”
“Again, as I’m saying-” Verma began, before Hawley interjected: “You said science and evidence should control. Can men get pregnant? You’re a doctor, I think.”
“Science and evidence should guide medicine,” Verma said.
Hawley pushed: “Do science and evidence tell us that men can get pregnant?”
“I think yes-no questions like this are a political tool,” Verma answered, calling Hawley’s line of questioning “polarizing.”
Hawley fired back: “It is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality and should be treated and protected as such; that is truth.”
He later added that it “is deeply corrosive to science, to public trust and yes, to constitutional protections for women as women” not to acknowledge that only biological females can get pregnant.
This isn’t the first time leftist witnesses have twisted biology in abortion hearings.
But Verma’s evasions stand out as particularly egregious.
Episodes like this underscore the left’s detachment from reality, where protecting women from exploitation takes a backseat to appeasing radical activists. Biological facts aren’t negotiable—they’re essential to safeguarding freedom and common sense. If we let ideology override science, we risk more than just hearings; we risk the very foundations of truth in our society.
More at:
We are in a bizarro world where doctors and lawyers feel compelled to mislead the public on who is a woman
Can men get pregnant?
Years ago, such a question would have been an insult to the intelligence of anyone above the age of 8.
And yet, Dr. Nisha Verma, a senior advisor to the nonprofit Physicians for Reproductive Health, attempted a rhetorical bob-and-weave when asked about it by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) at a congressional hearing on abortion pills Wednesday.
“I take care of people with many identities,” Verma said before expressing a hestitation about where Hawley was going with his line of questioning.
“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?”
The doc, who presumably knows a thing or two about the reproductive system in humans, dug in — to the detriment of her reputation.
She called “yes/no questions” political tools and insisted Hawley’s query reduced the issue’s “complexity” and was also polarizing.
One wonders if she accused her professors of the same behavior while in medical schoolat the University of North Carolina.
But admitting that men cannot give birth would subject Verma, a Democrat witness, to ridicule inside her progressive bubble, where identity and ideology trump objective truth and science.
She’s not alone.
Just a day earlier, Supreme CourtJustice Samuel Alito asked attorney Kathleen Hartnett another simple question during oral arguments over state laws banning transgender athletes in women’s sports.
“And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?” Alito asked.
Hartnett, who was representing a transgender athlete, said “we do not have a definition for the court.”
To which Alito responded: “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”
Indeed, what are we doing here? We’re arguing about an issue that hinges on simple biological definition that these medical and legal professionals are simply unable or, more likely, unwilling to offer.
This was a especially ridiculous week for progressives, who showed that they are a seriously unserious bunch — despite declaring themselves the party of science and sticking all those “In this house, we believe … ” signs on their lawns.
For years, activists have used language to create an alternative reality, one rewired to suit the transgender minority.
One where non-trans people are “cisgender” and gender is “assigned at birth” by physicians — a phrase so outrageous, it evokes the image of doctor with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, pulling an F or M out of a bingo spinner.
It’s been a full scale effort from the left to blur the sex binary and subjugate anyone daring enough to call it out as nonsense. In fact, the act of “misgendering” onceresulted in bans from Twitter. (Those censorious polices are what led Elon Musk to buy the platform in 2022.)
During her 2022 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to define “woman.”
“No, I can’t … I’m not a biologist,” Brown said without an ounce of shame. She knew she was risking alienating the base.
Wielding control of cultural institutions and corporate culture, activists as well as also regular old well-intentioned liberals tried to create a new reality in which sex is not immutable and identity takes priority over science.
But this isn’t 2022 anymore. No one fears the social-justice mob or cancellation. Call us transphobes. Call us bigots. Deployed to dismiss a point of view and avoid a conversation about real facts that would disrupt their worldview, these labels have zero impact.
Our society is no long buckling under the tyranny of the pronoun police.
If the left wants to continue to wander the political desert for another four years, rudderless and obsessively clinging to a fantasy, by all means.
One cannot change their sex, nor can a man give birth. Only those with common sense are willing to admit it.
More at:
Justice Jackson Outdoes Herself With Complete Nonsense Of An Opinion
Leave it to the woman who doesn’t know what a woman is to decide if men belong in women’s sports.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stumbled through oral argument Tuesday in the case of West Virginia v. B.P.J. The case concerns “[w]hether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” and “whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” according to SCOTUSblog.
Biological sex is indeed “determined,” as in, “ascertained,” not “assigned.”
Jackson described her understanding of the issue at hand to West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams.
“You have the overarching classification, you know, everybody has to be, um, uh, play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth, um, but then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that, meaning, a distinction, meaning that um, for, uh, cisgender girls they can play consistent with their gender identity, for transgender girls, they can’t,” said Jackson.
Jackson distinguishes between “sex” and “gender identity” as though the latter is a category deserving of equal consideration. “Gender identity” only means “a particular feeling I have about myself.” If that feeling leads one to make unreasonable demands, it is perfectly reasonable to toss those demands in the trash.
Williams countered Jackson, saying, “I think, if anything, that’s useful evidence as to the lack of a transgender-based discrimination, because if the legislature were just sort of unsettled by the notion of transgender athletes, I think the answer would’ve been to then bar them from —”
Jackson interrupted: “No, I appreciate that, I appreciate that, I guess I was getting at, the, um, what I understood the Chief Justice to be trying to resusce, which was, this notion that this is really just about the definition of, um, we accept that you can separate boys and girls, and we are now looking at the definition of a girl, and we’re saying only people who were, um, girl assigned at birth qualify.”
Again, no one is “assigned” a sex at birth. The doctor doesn’t spin a wheel and land on “girl” or “boy” or “none of the above” and proceed accordingly.
Jackson infamously refused to define the word “woman” in her confirmation hearing, when asked to do so by Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn.
“I’m not a biologist,” Jackson protested.
In another case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Jackson said: “To the extent that you have an individual who says, ‘What is happening in this law is that it is treating someone who is transgender, but who does not have, because of medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the same, uh, threat to physical competition and safety and all of the reasons that the state puts forward, that’s actually a different class,’ says this individual. So you’re not treating the class the same … How do you respond to that?”
Joshua Block, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer representing the transgender-identified athlete, proposed a similar hypothetical in West Virginia v. B.P.J.
“If the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude [him].”
“Unlike the exclusion of a cisgender boy, excluding B.P.J. doesn’t advance any interest in ensuring overall fairness and safety. And unlike the case of a cisgender boy, excluding B.P.J. from the girls’ teams excludes [him] from all athletic opportunity while stigmatizing and separating [him] from [his] peers.”
But there’s the rub. There will always be relevant physiological differences between a boy and a girl, even if that boy disfigures himself with the aid of so-called “puberty blockers.” Sure, that boy may be weaker and shorter and have deformed genitalia (all very real consequences of halted testosterone production), but he is, to his core, a boy. Sexual differentiation begins in the womb. Infants, in their first months of life, undergo “mini-puberty,” a period marked by an upswing in the secretion of sex steroids.
That’s all to say: There are boys and there are girls. Any argument to the opposite is wishful thinking by people with deranged wishes.
In any case, Jackson probably should’ve recused herself for this one. She isn’t a biologist. What does she know?
More at:
More Stories
The Chief Justice and His Wife Took $20 Million From Firms He Rules On. I’m Filing for His Disbarment Today
Surprise! En-Banc Appellate Court Restores ‘Ten Commandments’ Law in Texas
NEW: Iran Caves, Declares Strait of Hormuz “Completely Open” for All Commercial Ships – Trump Responds