The 'New Yorker' claims women can be 'kind of pregnant' in article questioning pregnancy tests, tell me about this news in (https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-yorker-claims-women-kind-of-pregnant-article-questioning-pregnancy-tests)
18-09-2026
The Fox News article covers widespread backlash and criticism directed at The New Yorker following a piece and social media post discussing the biology and medical interpretation of pregnancy tests.
Key Highlights of the Report:The Statement in Question: The New Yorker published an article questioning home pregnancy tests, accompanied by a post on X (formerly Twitter) stating:
“Pregnancy tests draw a misleading, somewhat arbitrary, binary between a state of being pregnant and not being pregnant. You can be kind of pregnant, a little bit pregnant, or almost pregnant, or maybe pregnant, and still test positive for pregnancy.”
The Argument Behind the Article: The piece examined the science of pregnancy detection, highlighting that modern tests measure levels of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). It noted that conception, implantation, and early embryonic development exist along a physiological continuum, where transient biological events (such as chemical pregnancies, early miscarriages, or early losses shortly after implantation) can produce detectable hormones without resulting in a viable or developing pregnancy.
The Reaction and Backlash: Fox News reported that the claim sparked immediate mockery and sharp pushback from critics, medical commentators, and conservative voices online:
Critics widely mocked the phrasing, arguing that it defies basic human biology and the long-held adage that one “cannot be a little bit pregnant”asserting that fertilization and pregnancy are fundamentally binary conditions.
Pro-life advocates and political commentators voiced concern that framing pregnancy as non-binary or arbitrary was an attempt to blur the lines around the beginning of human life and embryonic personhood, especially in the context of post-Roe v. Wade abortion debates.