It's Thursday, January 15, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Before I say anything else, I want you to hear something said in a Senate hearing yesterday. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since you bring it up, why don't we just start there? Dr. Verma, I wasn't sure I understood your answer to Senator Moody a moment ago. Do you think that men can get pregnant? I hesitated there because I wasn't sure where the conversation was going or what the goal was. 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 I wasn't sure where you were going with that. Well, the goal is just the truth. So can men get pregnant? Again, the reason I paused there is I'm not really sure what the goal of the question is. 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? All right. Well, that continued for almost five minutes. We're talking about U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri. He was pressing questions to Dr. Anisha Verma. She's an obstetrician gynecologist. We'll describe her in greater detail. Very qualified medical doctor, physician, member of a medical school faculty. But here she was unable. No, she was unwilling to answer the question, can men get pregnant? Now, with today's broadcast, you'll see a link to the entire exchange between Senator Hawley and Dr. Verma. But let's just understand, we're looking at a culture staring right at a precipice, right at the precipice, a culture on the brink of disaster. We're talking about a very highly educated doctor, an obstetrician, gynecologist, medical school professor, and there's more to that, as we will tell you. But nonetheless, she was unwilling to answer the question as to whether or not men can get pregnant. The senator knew what he was doing. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was asking a simple question. It's a simple question in the English language, could not be actually made more simple. And it's a yes or no question. Can men get pregnant? And of course, as any kindergartner or first grader could tell you, the answer to that is no. It is mommies who have babies, not daddies. It's just one of the simplest biological facts that any human being can know. We're talking about something as basic as Genesis 1, male and female. Boy and girl, man and woman, it is that simple. Men can't get pregnant. Now one of the things that became very clear in the exchange there in the Senate hearing yesterday was that it must have been that this physician expected the line of questioning. She was adamant. She was absolutely determined that she was not going to answer the question. She ended up looking like an idiot. But she was evidently willing to do that simply because she is more committed to a higher call. And that higher call is evidently defending the entire LGBTQ ideology. But it's the transgender issue that of course is front and center. That wasn't what was scheduled to be front and center in this particular Senate committee hearing. We're talking about the Senate's Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. It was a hearing held yesterday and the basic question, the basic focus addressed by the hearing was going to be the safety of abortive fashion medications, of medical abortions, the so-called abortion pill. And the reason why this doctor was present, Dr. Nisha Verma, is because she is someone who is very much engaged in the abortion issue. She is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, but she is also an abortionist. She works with Planned Parenthood. She was appearing before this Senate committee as a fellow of an organization known as Physicians for Reproductive Health. Will you hear that? You know exactly what it is. It is straightforwardly a pro-abortion organization. Everybody by the way is adjunct associate professor at Emory University. We're looking here at a massive problem. But there are few moments in America's political history that distill as much reality as we saw in that Senate hearing yesterday. Just in the course of about five minutes, just even in the seconds you heard, almost a minute in terms of the beginning of this exchange, you understand this is a collision of two worlds. This is a collision certainly of two world views, but this is a collision over something as basic as biological reality. By the way, it's not that there are two views of biological reality. One of the things that became clear awkwardly as you look at the transcript or listen to that exchange is that Dr. Verma is so committed to the transgender ideology, and of course that just goes part and parcel with everything else, that she was willing to use or at least to imply the acceptable use of a category like biological male, but that is not the same thing as using the word man. She really tried to negotiate around the issue, but as I said, she ended up looking like someone who is both dishonest and an idiot. That is at great professional cost. At least you would think, but maybe not because the professions, the medical profession in general and a group such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, it's pretty much joined the irrationality. It has joined the war on biology. It has at least to a considerable extent joined the transgender revolution. And what we as Christians understand is that that means the unraveling just as a social code, not just of a cultural set of expectations, is the unraveling or the attempted unraveling of creation. It's at the very least a rebellion against creation order. And it's also a rebellion against common sense. When Senator Hawley asked that question, can men get pregnant? He knew exactly what he was doing. I don't think there was any surprise on his part when Dr. Verma was unwilling to answer the question. And like a trained prosecutor, which he is, he went right at the question over and over again. And Dr. Verma, however, was adamant in taking her stand. She wasn't going to answer the question. She obfuscated. She tried to deny. She said that perhaps this was part of a right wing agenda. She turned it into something she said was merely political. And there were a couple of interesting parts of the exchange. For one thing, as I say, Dr. Verma was absolutely determined that she was not going to answer the question, can men get pregnant? Instead, she talked about when pressed by Senator Hawley, quote, to the complex experiences of my patients. And she also referred to patients, quote, that don't identify as women. End quote. Of course, the point that Senator Hawley was making is that whether or not they identify as women, if they are pregnant, guess what? Again, the first grader knows she's a mom. She is a female. She is a woman. And it's also interesting to note, and I think this is really, really important. It's important to note that this was a hearing that was about abortion. So how did you get from abortion to the question, can men get pregnant? Well, it's really interesting and it's really important. And it's one of the most disclosive, say, five minutes in terms of worldview impact I've seen in a long time. So how exactly are the abortion issue and the transgender issues so intertwined and inseparable in this issue? Well, it is because, again, this was the meeting of the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor, and Pensions. And it was considering whether or not the government had rightly or wrongly rushed the process of approving Mipha Pristone and the abortion pill, basically medication abortion. And the big issue in the background of this is women's health. Now, of course, if you're going to talk about women's health, you're talking about, well, women. But in this case, of course, you're talking about the context of pregnancy and the question becomes in who's pregnant. And here's where you see this modern, well, absolutely bizarre obfuscation in which people talk about pregnant people. Well, Senator Hawley saw the opportunity and I'm so thankful he seized it and I'm thankful for the clarity that came out of this, absolutely. And so what you had was the fact that the two issues are conjoined precisely because if you're going to talk about women's health, then you're going to have to acknowledge in the context of pregnancy that only women can get pregnant unless this is an issue women's health. If it's just the issue of pregnant people's health, well, you know, that's actually going to put many of the feminist activists on a, well, it's going to put them on suspension because after all, they can't talk about women. They can only talk about pregnant people. But of course, the way politics works, they want to switch the argument back and forth. And so when it's convenient, they'll say, this is an issue about the health of women. But when it comes down to defining women, all of a sudden you have pregnant people. And so they switch. It's another form of code switching. It's pregnant people here. It's women there, whatever's most convenient for the purpose. But the reality is this is where any sane person just has to stop and say, I'm not going to talk about pregnant people. This is a hearing that has to do with the impact of a specific medication on women in the context of pregnancy. It is that simple. That was exactly, I think, what was behind Senator Hawley's question. There was good reason to believe that this individual was pretty much going to do what she did. She's asked the question, can men get pregnant? Just that simply. And she can't answer the question. Now, what's disclosed just in that fact alone is massive intellectual dishonesty. So I'm going to state right now, I don't think that Dr. Verma is at all confused about the matter. I'm absolutely convinced that she knows as a board certified obstetrician that only females, only women, can get pregnant. Women are girls. But when it comes to politics and when it comes to Planned Parenthood and when it comes to the common front of abortion and the LGBTQ revolution, when it comes to the common nexus there and the issue of sex and pregnancy and all the rest, guess what? She, as someone who has impeccable medical credentials, can't answer a question a first grader would undoubtedly get right. Senator Hawley at one point pressed the question, can men get pregnant? And Dr. Verma came back and said that, quote, questions like this are a political tool. And then Senator Hawley came back and said, no, this is just about the truth. And the truth of the matter is, well, you've got to answer the question, can men get pregnant? She then said that the senator was trying to reduce the complexity of the situation. And Senator Hawley said, no, I'm not. It's not complex. I'm trying to get to an answer and I'm trying to test frankly your veracity as a medical professional and as a scientist. Can men get pregnant? Okay. I want us to know what Senator Hawley did there. He said that he was asking the question in order to test this doctor's what? Her veracity. That is to say her honesty. The straightforwardness and the truthfulness of her testimony. Again, her response revealed idiocy, but it also revealed deep dishonesty. Let me put it another way. This exchange could have gone differently. And I want to put this way. The senator could have asked, can men get pregnant? And Dr. Verma could have answered, yes, they can. Straightforwardly, yes, they can. The senator might then have come back and said, how do you define a man? And she undoubtedly come back with an answer that would comport with a transgender ideology. But the point is, she would not allow herself to say that. She would not allow herself to say that a man can get pregnant or that men can get pregnant. She just wouldn't say they can't. I think that reveals something. I think in worldview analysis, it reveals she's willing to basically forfeit her veracity or her honesty to an extent, but she doesn't want to be on the record saying, yes, men can get pregnant. Let's just say that that seems to be a line she was unwilling to cross. However, she effectively does the same thing by refusing to say that men can't get pregnant. And obstinately, absolutely refusing to do so. Against what was undoubtedly a very strong questioning coming from Senator Hawley and knowing that this could go viral, and by the way, has, I think it tells you a great deal about the medical profession. It tells you about doctors who work with Planned Parenthood. I think it tells us something very disclosive in that respect. We are talking here about a civilization on the brink, a civilization that produces doctors like this, teaching in medical schools and operating at the highest echelons of American medical practice. If we've produced doctors who will not say that men can't get pregnant, I mean, we really are facing a cultural disaster. I don't know what the catalyst remaining would be in order to reach some sort of very devastating meltdown. One other dimension of all of this, and the fact that Dr. Verma wouldn't answer the question, I think it reveals the fact that even the gender ideologues understand that the ideologies are absolute insanity. The doctor made herself appear clueless about basic biology because she's committed to something more important to her, which is a radical worldview driven by personal autonomy, individual liberation, and identity politics. And I think the fact she works for Planned Parenthood and herself performs abortions tells you something there. The doctor made herself appear clueless about basic biology because she's committed to something more important to her. By the way, there is something more basic than ideology. They are just steadfastly defended basically an ideological position. But you know what? Christians understand there's something more fundamental, more basic than ideology, and that is biological reality. Let's just state it this way. A human baby is never going to pass through a male pelvis. Never. Not a chance. Not going to happen. A man is never going to develop eggs, and a woman is never going to develop sperm. There's not a chance. And again, I wouldn't ask a first grader about that, but I would guess that a high school freshman's got that pretty much nailed. The hearing yesterday also helps to underline the fact that Christians need to see the fundamental ontological issue here. That's to say, ontology is being. It's the most basic level of reality. And as Christians, we understand this to be nothing other than creation order. This is creation as the Creator made it, the order that He revealed in it, and the insanity of resisting that order, which by the way, He, according to His own word, He made obvious in creation. The answer to Senator Holly's question is obvious. And that's because the Creator made the world shout, no, men cannot get pregnant from the very first moment of God's creation of human beings. By the way, the one being made in His image and the only being who can confuse things and sinfulness to this degree. All right. My point here is that it doesn't get more basic than this in terms of our understanding of the great challenge, worldview challenge we face. If you can't get boy and girl right, you're not going to get anything else right, which takes us not just back to yesterday, but back to Tuesday at the Supreme Court of the United States when the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in two cases related to the question, as to whether or not states have the right to limit girls' sports to girls' women's sports to women. Twenty-seven states of the 50 states have adopted legislation that basically bans transgender females in particular, as they are called. That means biological males who present claim female identity. They are blocked in 27 states from participating in school sports if taxpayer monies involved. That means the public schools in particular, K through 12, and then also colleges and universities that participate in federal funding, which means almost all of them, not just a few, including Boyce College and a few others. But when it comes to almost every other college and university, they're participating in federal funding programs. They come under Title IX, and thus they are very much a part of this story. So how did the hearings go on Tuesday? Well, predictably, the press came out, observers of the court came out immediately after the three and a half hours of hearings in the two cases joined with one basic constitutional question. They basically came out and said, the conservatives appear to be quite ready to say that the states have the right to adopt such legislation. Now the court has taken the question as to whether or not it is unconstitutional for states to adopt such legislation. The cases are coming from the states of Idaho and West Virginia. Idaho, by the way, was the first state to adopt this kind of legislation. West Virginia was pretty fast itself. That's probably why these cases are coming from these two states. In both cases, you have biological males in the background of the case who had demanded to be recognized as females and to play on sports teams. In one case, it was in the public schools, that's West Virginia. In another case, it was at the college level. That was the Idaho case. In the Idaho case, the plaintiff in the cases asked the case to be dropped, but the Supreme Court's not going to allow that to happen. At least it certainly doesn't appear to allow that to happen, because at this point, the case belongs to the courts. It is a constitutional question, and actually, her role in this is now minimal. The same thing was true, by the way, in early abortion rights cases. But the case in West Virginia has to do with a young person, a biological male, otherwise known as a boy, who is looking at the fact as a sophomore, that this is a question about whether or not the student will be able to participate as a female, ongoingly, in terms of the public schools and the athletics. Okay, so how did it go yesterday in the hearings? Well, the justices pretty much played their role, and they asked basic questions, and there were some in the beginning of the course of the oral arguments who thought, well, you know, this isn't entirely against the arguments made by the plaintiffs. It isn't entirely clear that the justices are going to uphold the right estates to adopt this legislation. But by the time you get to the end, it was clear that at least five of the conservative members of the Supreme Court appeared to be ready to say, no, the states have the right to adopt this legislation. One of the odd questions here is Justice Neil Gorsuch, and that is because in a 2020 case, he joined by the Chief Justice, lamentably, actually said that the Title IX requirement that there be no discrimination on the basis of sex covered transgender persons because the only way to say no to them was to judge on the basis of sex. It is a convoluted, and I think basically a false argument, false on its face. But nonetheless, one of the big questions is how Justice Gorsuch is going to rule in this case. But again, we are talking about whether biological males, boys, should be allowed to play on girls' teams. And as you know, the context isn't just athletics, it's facilities, it's bathrooms, it's locker rooms, it's everything. Once again, we're on the brink of a cultural disaster. It's plausible, and I think hopeful, that a majority of the justices are going to rule in a sane way here. But it's also possible that the court rules in a way that is so narrow that it doesn't have much long-term impact. Even Justice Kavanaugh, who does appear to uphold the rights of the states to pass this legislation, he said, you know, this is an experiment that's working its way out, and lamentably, that is the case. We have to hope, however, it is an experiment that is brought to a speedy, rational, right end. One other thing we need to note in the aftermath of the oral arguments, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to wait until today, I wanted to see how major people in the median and the culture responded to the oral arguments and to the case itself. One of the things that caught my eye is in a column by Nancy Armour in USA Today. She's a sports columnist at USA Today. She'd been one for the Associated Press, I think, for about 20 years. But I can pretty much count on her to make a really horrible argument on anything related to LGBTQ issues. Here's what she says, quote, the Supreme Court can issue rulings in a million cases and it won't make transgender people disappear, end quote. Okay, fascinating state, but we're going to come back to it because that word disappear is carrying a lot of freight there, false freight, but it's one of the things we need to learn to watch for. She goes on and says, quote, that's what this is about, not who gets to participate in sports or protecting women or preserving Title IX, erasure, period, she says, permanently removing transgender women from every social space. So bigots and people who don't care to be educated no longer have to look at or think about a group of people they don't understand or who make them uncomfortable while making all women adhere to a prescribed idea of femininity, end quote. Okay, that's doing a lot of work. Here you have Nancy Armour making the argument that presenting as female, it's wrong to expect someone who is female to present as female and to have a prescribed vision of femininity. We're not talking here about females, we're talking about biological males. You know, here's one of the fundamental issues of irrationality. It's easy to understand the claims of second-wave feminism. It's easy to understand someone like a Martina Navratilova who's a lesbian, and again, her basic argument is there's a difference between men and women, and guess what, lesbians get it. And feminists get it. That's one of the reasons why they saw Title IX as a great achievement back in 1972, but no one was thinking in transgender categories then, but I want us to note just in terms of worldview analysis, something that is so very important, and that is the argument that Nancy Armour used. It's ideological, it really goes back to critical theory, it goes back to identity politics. She says the Supreme Court can issue rulings in a million cases and it won't make transgender people disappear. That's what this is about. That is, making them disappear. Okay, listen to this. Later she writes this, no one is forcing kids to transition. Later people aren't lurking in bathrooms, waiting to assault people. Transgender women athletes aren't stealing trophies and opportunities from other women en masse, by the way. She has to say en masse there because they are doing that. They're not doing that in large numbers precisely because they're not doing in large numbers yet. That doesn't change the moral equation, but her next sentence, quote, all they want to do is exist. Okay, here's where we need to note in worldview analysis what's going on. You have people say, you want people just not to be visible or you want them not to exist. Well, the fact is that no sane person wants these human beings made in the image of God not to exist. But the claim here, and it's central to this modern construct of personal identity, is very much tied to not only the LGBTQ revolution, but psychotherapeutic context and critical theory. Just coming out and saying, if you deny that I am who I say I am, you are denying my existence. It's irrational, but this is an argument that gets a lot of traction. Hollywood celebrities use it. The therapeutic community uses it. Academics use it. It's something that's tailor made for politicians to use them. I'm going to recognize that these people exist. That is supposed to be carrying a lot of moral weight. It actually is an empty box. But sadly, tragically, there is a sense in which I think some of the people making this argument from inside the transgender identity, they think they mean what they say. And I think that makes this all the more tragic. For example, I'm going to go to an article in conclusion from The Guardian that's a liberal newspaper in Britain. And it's about this particular set of cases before the Supreme Court. And it doesn't end with a quote, transgender female, but rather with a transgender male. And by the way, there are no cases basically in which you have people saying that biological females presenting as males represent a challenge to the integrity of sports, all the other ways. It's biological males presenting as females. But nonetheless, the identity construct is really here. This transgender individual who is a 17-year-old female claiming a male identity, here's how The Guardian concluded the article, quote, Leonard wishes people understood how meaningful it can be for trans youth to play on teams where they belong. Quote, it made me really, really, really, really happy to be on the boy's team, affirming my gender identity, affirming I was as good as any cis boy, that means cisgender boy born as a boy. Quote, I know that I'm a boy, but being on a boy's team proves to everyone and myself that I am in fact a boy, and this is where I am supposed to be. End quote. Okay, that's heartbreaking to me. As a Christian, as a father and a grandfather, that's heartbreaking to me. Here you have a young woman who says that being on a boy's team affirms that I'm a boy. Being on a boy's team, quote, proves to everyone and myself, there's the most tragic part, that I am in fact a boy. Well, she is not in fact a boy. Being on a boy's team does not make her a boy. But this confusion isn't so much infuriating for Christians. Brothers and sisters, it is infuriating. So far more than that, it has to be heard as heartbreaking. The infuriating part is the fact that someone had to construct the lie that this young person has embraced. That lie is not only a lie in terms of being false, it's a lie in terms of being deadly. And the heartbreaking part, well first and foremost, it's for the young people who are caught up in this transgender confusion and ideology. But it also has to be extended to the heartbreak for an entire civilization that is taking itself right to the brink of an absolute crack up. Seen tragically in a doctor who won't answer the question, can men get pregnant? And in scores now of young people who've been fed a lie that a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy. God help us. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmolar.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com forward slash albertmolar. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.
