On Wednesday, January 14, 2026, Dr. Nisha Verma — a board- certified obstetrician- gynecologist and Fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health — witnessed before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions during what came one of the most contentious sounds of the time on reproductive healthcare.
The hail, named “ guarding Women Exposing the troubles of Chemical Abortion medicines, ” was convened by Democratic lawgivers to examine the safety of drug revocation, with a particular focus on the medicine mifepristone. Called as a substantiation by Popular members of the commission, Dr. Verma faced sustained and at times combative questioning that extended beyond scientific substantiation into debates over gender identity — exchanges that snappily went viral on social media.
particular Experience and Access enterprises
In her set evidence, Dr. Verma combined clinical moxie with particular experience. According to Physicians for Reproductive Health, she bared that she had taken mifepristone and misoprostol herself several months before following a gestation loss.
“ Knowing their safety and efficiency, I took these specifics myself many months ago after my hubby and I endured a ruinous gestation loss, ” Dr. Verma witnessed. “ Fortunately, in Massachusetts, we were able to gain the specifics from an original drugstore and complete this veritably delicate process safely, intimately, and at home. ”
She used her experience to emphasize differences in access, arguing that restrictions on mifepristone can compound emotional and physical difficulty for cases navigating gestation loss or seeking revocation care.
Scientific substantiation on Medication Abortion
Verma also presented expansive exploration supporting the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone. Citing decades of medical data, she noted that the medicine has been anatomized in further than 780 medical reviews and studied in over 630 published clinical trials, including further than 420 randomized controlled studies. Over 100 of those studies, she said, concentrated specifically on safety issues.
“ The wisdom on mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness is longstanding and settled, ” Dr. Verma stated.
In a separate statement, Senator Patty Murray’s office emphasized that further than 160 high- quality studies have examined mifepristone and that millions of women worldwide have used the drug safely, with complication rates lower than those associated with several generally specified medicines.
Verma also raised enterprises about health equity. According to Physicians for Reproductive Health, she witnessed that confining access to mifepristone would disproportionately affect low- income cases, cases of color, emigrants, and individualities living in pastoral areas — groups that formerly face significant systemic walls to healthcare.
“ I’m guided by wisdom, and I’m also reflecting the complex realities my cases face. Polarized language and questioning do n’t advance that thing. ”
Heated Exchange on Gender Identity
The hail took a combative turn when Legislators Ashley Moody and Josh Hawley constantly questioned Dr. Verma about whether men can come pregnant. According to multiple media reports, including Fox News, Dr. Verma declined to offer a simple yea- or- no response, explaining that she treats cases with different individualities and viewed the questioning as politically driven rather than scientifically applicable to the hail’s stated focus.
“ I take care of people with numerous individualities, ” Dr. Verma told Senator Hawley, according to reiterations published by several news outlets. She added that framing the issue in double terms was, in her view, a political tactic, and said she’d drink a discussion that did n’t appear from any trouble to centralize.
According to The National office, Senator Hawley pushed back, arguing that the hail centered on wisdom and women’s health and emphasizing natural distinctions between men and women. “ I do n’t know how we can take you seriously and your claims to be a person of wisdom if you wo n’t level with us on this introductory issue, ” Hawley said, as quoted in media reports.
Verma stood by her position throughout the exchange. “ I’m a person of wisdom, and I also represent the complex gestures of my cases, ” she responded. “ I do n’t suppose concentrated language or questioning serves that thing, ” according to The National office.
Professional Background and Credentials
Dr. Verma brings extensive clinical and academic experience to her work. According to professional profiles from Emory Healthcare and the Society of Family Planning, she was born in North Carolina to Indian immigrant parents. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biology and Anthropology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she also completed her medical degree in 2015.
She completed her obstetrics and gynecology residency at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center before pursuing advanced training through a Complex Family Planning Fellowship at Emory University. During that time, she also earned a Master of Public Health degree, according to Emory Healthcare.
Dr. Verma is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology and is a subspecialist in complex family planning. According to Newsweek, she began practicing medicine in 2021 and has more than a decade of experience in the medical field. She currently provides care in both Georgia and Massachusetts and is affiliated with multiple hospitals, including Emory University Hospital Midtown and Grady Memorial Hospital, according to U.S. News & World Report.
According to Emory Healthcare, Dr. Verma serves as an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine. She previously held the Darney/Landy Fellowship at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where she was actively engaged in abortion-related policy and advocacy efforts, according to the Society of Family Planning.
Research and Advocacy Focus
Dr. Verma’s research and advocacy work centers on abortion care in restrictive policy environments. According to the Society of Family Planning, her expertise includes qualitative research in areas with limited access to abortion services, as well as work at the intersection of research, policy, and advocacy. Her stated goal is to generate data that can inform policy change and expand access to abortion care in the U.S. Southeast, particularly for communities that face longstanding barriers to healthcare.
She has authored multiple peer-reviewed studies on topics such as telehealth medication abortion, self-managed abortion, and the effects of abortion restrictions on maternal health outcomes, according to her U.S. News profile.
As a Fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, Dr. Verma has testified before Congress on several occasions. C-SPAN records show that she has appeared in at least five congressional hearings since 2022, including testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in September 2022 and appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 2023 and 2025.
Responding to Critics
During her testimony, Dr. Verma acknowledged the complexity surrounding abortion care while emphasizing the importance of evidence-based medicine. “As a doctor, I know that abortion care can be complicated for many people. I sit with that complexity every day, as do many of my patients and their families,” she said, according to Physicians for Reproductive Health. “Holding space for that complexity is important—but discomfort with abortion care should not be used to distort facts.”
She concluded her prepared remarks by reaffirming her commitment to patient-centered care. According to Physicians for Reproductive Health, she told lawmakers that her work allows her the privilege of learning directly from patients and their families, reminding her that abortion care and pregnancy are not abstract political issues. She said she chose to testify despite the difficulty of the environment to honor those experiences and urged the committee to focus on addressing documented risks patients face rather than limiting access to safe, evidence-based care.
The hearing highlighted deep divisions in U.S. politics over reproductive healthcare and underscored how debates over abortion increasingly intersect with broader questions of gender identity and the role of physicians in politically charged settings. As lawmakers continue to debate abortion policy and access to medication abortion, Dr. Verma’s testimony reflects the ongoing tension between medical evidence and political considerations in shaping healthcare policy.
