Lindsay Clancy doesn’t deny strangling each of her children to death, so the fact that she has become an icon and hero to so many women ought to give us pause.
On the abortion issue, laws that permit abortion "up to the moment of birth," such as the recently enacted Massachusetts law, are no different than abortion "at birth." At that point, the baby has the constitutional right to life under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Trump DOJ should challenge the constitutionality of the Massachusetts abortion law.
It remains to be seen what the Clancy jury does, though they just sent a note to the judge. With nine women on the jury, statistically, it would seem likely that at least two or three women are buying Lindsay Clancy's bulls**t. If women wish to be exempted from application of criminal law because they "lack agency," then women should be deemed "perpetual minors" and deemed incapable to vote, enter into contracts, including financial decisions, denied the right to own property and obtain credit, and, of course, be denied driver's licenses; the latter is probably a good idea anyway! 😃 If women want to treated as young children of larger growth, to paraphrase Lord Chesterfield IV, then, as a society, this just might be the way to go!?!
This claim: “If women wish to be exempted from application of criminal law because they "lack agency," then women should be deemed "perpetual minors.." commits 3 fallacies: straw man, slippery slope, and faulty generalization.
Happy to see you back writing, Sarah! I wanted to put some thoughts down on this case myself, but I feel such rage about everything going on that I wouldn't even know where to start.
Your visibility as a Catholic writer, along with your excellent use of English and vernacular within religious themes, should disallow you from agreeing with just anger described as rage. It is nearly an unacceptable mixture of virtuous and vice terms. Did Jesus “rage” in the Temple when he overturned the vendor’s tables?
The same failure of imagination that allows a woman to kill her unborn child because it “doesn’t seem real” allows women to support another woman’s murder of her own children, because they “don’t seem real,” either. The only thing that seems real to these stunted minds is themselves.
No one is is supporting the claim that Lindsay was right or should be “allowed” to murder her children. The women outside the courtrooms are generally advocating for maternal mental health awareness.
Such profound perceptions, Sarah I have been following you from your early years on YouTube. Your work moves me everytime you create, I wished I could create huge banners in the skies around the world with your writings and perceptions of our world. May the Lord have Divine Mercy on us all. Your soul shines brightly.
Giving in to evil thoughts is a battle lost; it can be done freely or in desperation. Mental illness has become the 'handy tool' of the present time, enabling the 'logic' of Relativism to take over the sound mind. Man is always repeating the same errors when it comes to the lies of Pride and the Reality of Humility: we re-play the roles of Adam and Eve at one time or another in our lives. "When will we learn?" When we know God through, and in Christ; there is no other Way to know the humility of Love. May God have mercy on us all and keep us close to Our Lady: Health of the Sick, Refuge of sinners, Pray for us.
Sarah - Great article, especially the connection to the Abortion issue, which is probably more real than we would like to admit. Regarding Clancy. Most people are incapable of understanding diseases of the brain which is the most powerful organ of the body, by a long way. Fortunately it operates within "normal" parameters for most. The Clancy trial should never have been displayed on TV - it was only there to achieve ratings and is irresponsible - they should be sued.
Most women who find themselves in the predicament of severe Postpartum Depression are motivated in the interest of the child/children, believing that the children should not have such an awful mother - they believe they are saving the children from a awful existence.
There is no federal right to an abortion, it's an issue of state law after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.
The reverse, however, it not true: There is a federal constitutional right to life under the 14th Amendment. Apparently as a society that line of when life begins, and therefore the constitutional right to life attaches, must be legally established. Blue States, it would seem, are incapable of properly drawing that line.
It is up to the federal government to enforce the right to life of the newborn.
Liberalism implicitly carries the idea that in order for persons to have equal dignity, they must literally be equal to (i.e. interchangeable with) each other. Women cannot have equal dignity to a man unless she is literally "equal" to him. Two men of different races cannot have equal dignity unless they are completely biologically and culturally interchangeable with each other, etc.
The same logic applies to children and adults. Because children are not interchangeable or "equal" to adults, liberal logic at its core implies therefore that children have "less dignity" than adults.
This is why they have no issue with abortion. Or with Clancy.
Sarah I’m sorry if this critique comes off as harsh. But this really struck a nerve for me.
As I know you are a well educated, Catholic that understands the nuance built into the framework by which a judgment is made about whether or not a person is committing a “sin” I’m surprised and worried by the lack of nuance in this article.
I wonder why the term “postpartum psychosis” does not appear even once in your article?
Do you not believe it is a thing at all? Or just not believe it’s a thing that Clancy may have been suffering from?
If you’re going to make claims about this case it’s very important to recognize that: Intrusive thoughts are not the same as auditory command hallucinations. A person in a manic state or in psychosis is experiencing an EXTERNAL voice that is distinct from their own internal narrator. In Clancy’s case she described it as a “deep male voice.” It’s eerie and disturbing to say but I’ve had schizophrenic patients report the same “deep male voice” to me.
You’re right we all have intrusive thoughts and it’s important to understand that psychiatry says you don’t use heavy duty antipsychotics to medicate people with simple intrusive thoughts. But you do use them to medicate people with external auditory and visual hallucinations. And thank God you do or there would be a lot more acts of horrific and senseless killing and violence.
One possibility is that many of the women outside the courthouse are advocating for general maternal mental health awareness- and are not advocating for the absurd claim that people who have had dark thoughts, “shouldn’t face the full consequences for her actions.” That is a gross distortion of an incredibly nuanced reality.
The claim that “asserting that one specific woman was not legally responsible for her actions at one specific moment will inevitably “eviscerate the agency of women everywhere” commits a slippery slope fallacy mixed with a straw man and a false dilemma.
The correction to this fallacious claim is that: “if we recognize that a severe psychiatric emergency like postpartum psychosis can temporarily impair a person's free will, it does not follow that society will suddenly treat all women as if they lack free will.”
I always appreciate a pro life stance and I 100% agree that location in or outside the womb is not what gives life value. I also see how the outpouring of “support” for Clancy could maybe reflect a society that undervalues fetuses/ babies/children’s lives and that there is certainly something very wrong with the idea that Clancy should just go free. These are ideas that are worth exploring more.
However, I am very frustrated with this article (and other right leaning articles on this topic) because they do not explore those ideas with grace or nuance. They present a sensationalized story that undermines the complex reality of what really happened here.
Namely, that we do not know and cannot know whether Clancy understood the wrongness of her actions. And that this horrific tragedy could very likely be the result of failed postpartum mental health care, side effects and paradoxical reactions to very powerful psych meds, combined with the absurd pressure put on mothers in this age of social media/parenting advice overload and a fear of the systems that are supposed to protect us in general.
I believe this is true, after very intense review of all the evidence and facts of the case I believe it is highly likely that Lindsay was in a state of psychosis (or at the very least her free will was severely comprised by a variety of factors) AND I am completely heartbroken and devastated about the death of the children. Many women that feel this way about Clancy’s mental state, ALSO feel heartbroken for the children.
I don’t discount the slim possibility that she somehow, out of NOWHERE, was just suddenly freely and consciously evil in that moment and freely made that choice. I recognize that possibility but I think it is a huge mistake and problem to draw far reaching and catastrophic conclusions based on a one sided, overly simplified perspective that completely ignores the other (and IMO significantly more likely possibility) that she was in psychosis.
Shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but that is what Lindsay Clancy sought, and still seeks. There is substantial evidence of forethought in sending her husband out of their house to provide sufficient time to murder her three kids using exercise bands. The "pink" crazed female supporters insist that due to her status either as a "mother," or more generically as a woman, she should be "believed" and therefore exempt from the consequences of her actions, apparently due to a "female hormonal issue."
The claim that someone should be believed in a matter of criminal justice because of their status a mother, a woman, or whatever, is not "justice." No one's explanation for their conduct is to be credited because of "who" they are, but what they did or did not do, or whether they knew right from wrong at the time of the triple murder of Lindsay Clancy's children.
There were numerous printed signs and statements outside the courthouse and on social media that Lindsay Clancy should be "believe" and therefore not criminally responsible for her conduct because she was a "mother." There was also the related argument made that because men don't get pregnant and give birth that they should not be permitted to judge someone who does, and did so three times.
These are all claims by a good number, a significant number, of women that their personal status should earn exemption from the consequences of their actions. It is unclear how widespread this belief is amongst women, but Lindsay Clancy had nine women on her jury who agreed with her (though they are a numerically small sample and likely did not independently reach the same conclusion) and hundreds of public supporters positioned outside the courthouse, which should not have been permitted but that's another story. Reportedly, three female jurors made it a point of wearing pink.
It's unclear what percentage of the adult female population in America believed, and continue to believe, that Lindsay Clancy should have been found "not guilty" of murder because she was a mother or, more broadly, a woman, but the argument that her status should determine her fate, and not her personal conduct, is arguing for an exemption from the criminal laws for mothers and, conceivably, all women generally.
The discredited Me Too!" movement ran on the mantra to "Believe All Women." Same exemption from criminal laws sought by women.
How common this mindset is among women is difficult to determine, but if women are claiming exemptions from criminal justice because they are women, then it is no different than we give minors limited or full exemption from the consequences of their actions. If women want to be exempted from the consequences of their actions as children are, then women should be treated as the children they wish to be.
Shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but that is what Lindsay Clancy sought, and still seeks. There is substantial evidence of forethought in sending her husband out of their house to provide sufficient time to murder her three kids using exercise bands. The "pink" crazed female supporters insist that due to her status either as a "mother," or more generically as a woman, she should be "believed" and therefore exempt from the consequences of her actions, apparently due to a "female hormonal issue."
The claim that someone should be believed in a matter of criminal justice because of their status a mother, a woman, or whatever, is not "justice." No one's explanation for their conduct is to be credited because of "who" they are, but what they did or did not do, or whether they knew right from wrong at the time of the triple murder of Lindsay Clancy's children.
There were numerous printed signs and statements outside the courthouse and on social media that Lindsay Clancy should be "believe" and therefore not criminally responsible for her conduct because she was a "mother." There was also the related argument made that because men don't get pregnant and give birth that they should not be permitted to judge someone who does, and did so three times.
These are all claims by a good number, a significant number, of women that their personal status should earn exemption from the consequences of their actions. It is unclear how widespread this belief is amongst women, but Lindsay Clancy had nine women on her jury who agreed with her (though they are a numerically small sample and likely did not independently reach the same conclusion) and hundreds of public supporters positioned outside the courthouse, which should not have been permitted but that's another story. Reportedly, three female jurors made it a point of wearing pink.
It's unclear what percentage of the adult female population in America believed, and continue to believe, that Lindsay Clancy should have been found "not guilty" of murder because she was a mother or, more broadly, a woman, but the argument that her status should determine her fate, and not her personal conduct, is arguing for an exemption from the criminal laws for mothers and, conceivably, all women generally.
The discredited Me Too!" movement ran on the mantra to "Believe All Women." Same exemption from criminal laws sought by women.
How common this mindset is among women is difficult to determine, but if women are claiming exemptions from criminal justice because they are women, then it is no different than we give minors limited or full exemption from the consequences of their actions. If women want to be exempted from the consequences of their actions as children are, then women should be treated as the children they wish to be.
Are we a society that's a step away from recognizing Honor Killings as an acceptable social construct? It certainly seems there are those willing to accept such evils as legitimate behavior. Don't they realize that such actions can easily morph into an excuse for killing people for the wrong skin color, age, height or having a spouse you want.
You mean like muslims murdering their own daughters for the sake of the parents' "honor"? DemocRats feel (they don't think) that they are using islam to take & maintain power when it's the reverse. If the islamic takeover isn't stopped very soon it will be too late.
Excellent Analysis!
On the abortion issue, laws that permit abortion "up to the moment of birth," such as the recently enacted Massachusetts law, are no different than abortion "at birth." At that point, the baby has the constitutional right to life under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Trump DOJ should challenge the constitutionality of the Massachusetts abortion law.
It remains to be seen what the Clancy jury does, though they just sent a note to the judge. With nine women on the jury, statistically, it would seem likely that at least two or three women are buying Lindsay Clancy's bulls**t. If women wish to be exempted from application of criminal law because they "lack agency," then women should be deemed "perpetual minors" and deemed incapable to vote, enter into contracts, including financial decisions, denied the right to own property and obtain credit, and, of course, be denied driver's licenses; the latter is probably a good idea anyway! 😃 If women want to treated as young children of larger growth, to paraphrase Lord Chesterfield IV, then, as a society, this just might be the way to go!?!
Even 12-year-olds are now being tried as adults.
Where?
Google it. It's not hard to find.
This claim: “If women wish to be exempted from application of criminal law because they "lack agency," then women should be deemed "perpetual minors.." commits 3 fallacies: straw man, slippery slope, and faulty generalization.
I’m really sick of seeing this idea circulate.
Happy to see you back writing, Sarah! I wanted to put some thoughts down on this case myself, but I feel such rage about everything going on that I wouldn't even know where to start.
Thank you. I'm very glad to be back, and your rage on this issue is certainly justified.
Your visibility as a Catholic writer, along with your excellent use of English and vernacular within religious themes, should disallow you from agreeing with just anger described as rage. It is nearly an unacceptable mixture of virtuous and vice terms. Did Jesus “rage” in the Temple when he overturned the vendor’s tables?
It was obviously a colloquial usage.
The same failure of imagination that allows a woman to kill her unborn child because it “doesn’t seem real” allows women to support another woman’s murder of her own children, because they “don’t seem real,” either. The only thing that seems real to these stunted minds is themselves.
Exactly. It's a type of desensitization that is paired with an unbelievable degree of egocentrism, ironically under the auspices of compassion.
No one is is supporting the claim that Lindsay was right or should be “allowed” to murder her children. The women outside the courtrooms are generally advocating for maternal mental health awareness.
Such profound perceptions, Sarah I have been following you from your early years on YouTube. Your work moves me everytime you create, I wished I could create huge banners in the skies around the world with your writings and perceptions of our world. May the Lord have Divine Mercy on us all. Your soul shines brightly.
So sorry you had to come back to face this story Sarah. We all hope you are well.
It will take some time to assimilate a seemingly incomprehensible event like this.
Giving in to evil thoughts is a battle lost; it can be done freely or in desperation. Mental illness has become the 'handy tool' of the present time, enabling the 'logic' of Relativism to take over the sound mind. Man is always repeating the same errors when it comes to the lies of Pride and the Reality of Humility: we re-play the roles of Adam and Eve at one time or another in our lives. "When will we learn?" When we know God through, and in Christ; there is no other Way to know the humility of Love. May God have mercy on us all and keep us close to Our Lady: Health of the Sick, Refuge of sinners, Pray for us.
Sarah - Great article, especially the connection to the Abortion issue, which is probably more real than we would like to admit. Regarding Clancy. Most people are incapable of understanding diseases of the brain which is the most powerful organ of the body, by a long way. Fortunately it operates within "normal" parameters for most. The Clancy trial should never have been displayed on TV - it was only there to achieve ratings and is irresponsible - they should be sued.
Most women who find themselves in the predicament of severe Postpartum Depression are motivated in the interest of the child/children, believing that the children should not have such an awful mother - they believe they are saving the children from a awful existence.
There is no federal right to an abortion, it's an issue of state law after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.
The reverse, however, it not true: There is a federal constitutional right to life under the 14th Amendment. Apparently as a society that line of when life begins, and therefore the constitutional right to life attaches, must be legally established. Blue States, it would seem, are incapable of properly drawing that line.
It is up to the federal government to enforce the right to life of the newborn.
When Governments legally condone the murder of babies up to and including birth ; it makes me wonder if MPs or Senators even believe this is a crime.
I wonder what their definition of Infanticide is. We know they are on the side of Paedophiles.
Liberalism implicitly carries the idea that in order for persons to have equal dignity, they must literally be equal to (i.e. interchangeable with) each other. Women cannot have equal dignity to a man unless she is literally "equal" to him. Two men of different races cannot have equal dignity unless they are completely biologically and culturally interchangeable with each other, etc.
The same logic applies to children and adults. Because children are not interchangeable or "equal" to adults, liberal logic at its core implies therefore that children have "less dignity" than adults.
This is why they have no issue with abortion. Or with Clancy.
Sarah I’m sorry if this critique comes off as harsh. But this really struck a nerve for me.
As I know you are a well educated, Catholic that understands the nuance built into the framework by which a judgment is made about whether or not a person is committing a “sin” I’m surprised and worried by the lack of nuance in this article.
I wonder why the term “postpartum psychosis” does not appear even once in your article?
Do you not believe it is a thing at all? Or just not believe it’s a thing that Clancy may have been suffering from?
If you’re going to make claims about this case it’s very important to recognize that: Intrusive thoughts are not the same as auditory command hallucinations. A person in a manic state or in psychosis is experiencing an EXTERNAL voice that is distinct from their own internal narrator. In Clancy’s case she described it as a “deep male voice.” It’s eerie and disturbing to say but I’ve had schizophrenic patients report the same “deep male voice” to me.
You’re right we all have intrusive thoughts and it’s important to understand that psychiatry says you don’t use heavy duty antipsychotics to medicate people with simple intrusive thoughts. But you do use them to medicate people with external auditory and visual hallucinations. And thank God you do or there would be a lot more acts of horrific and senseless killing and violence.
One possibility is that many of the women outside the courthouse are advocating for general maternal mental health awareness- and are not advocating for the absurd claim that people who have had dark thoughts, “shouldn’t face the full consequences for her actions.” That is a gross distortion of an incredibly nuanced reality.
The claim that “asserting that one specific woman was not legally responsible for her actions at one specific moment will inevitably “eviscerate the agency of women everywhere” commits a slippery slope fallacy mixed with a straw man and a false dilemma.
The correction to this fallacious claim is that: “if we recognize that a severe psychiatric emergency like postpartum psychosis can temporarily impair a person's free will, it does not follow that society will suddenly treat all women as if they lack free will.”
I always appreciate a pro life stance and I 100% agree that location in or outside the womb is not what gives life value. I also see how the outpouring of “support” for Clancy could maybe reflect a society that undervalues fetuses/ babies/children’s lives and that there is certainly something very wrong with the idea that Clancy should just go free. These are ideas that are worth exploring more.
However, I am very frustrated with this article (and other right leaning articles on this topic) because they do not explore those ideas with grace or nuance. They present a sensationalized story that undermines the complex reality of what really happened here.
Namely, that we do not know and cannot know whether Clancy understood the wrongness of her actions. And that this horrific tragedy could very likely be the result of failed postpartum mental health care, side effects and paradoxical reactions to very powerful psych meds, combined with the absurd pressure put on mothers in this age of social media/parenting advice overload and a fear of the systems that are supposed to protect us in general.
I believe this is true, after very intense review of all the evidence and facts of the case I believe it is highly likely that Lindsay was in a state of psychosis (or at the very least her free will was severely comprised by a variety of factors) AND I am completely heartbroken and devastated about the death of the children. Many women that feel this way about Clancy’s mental state, ALSO feel heartbroken for the children.
I don’t discount the slim possibility that she somehow, out of NOWHERE, was just suddenly freely and consciously evil in that moment and freely made that choice. I recognize that possibility but I think it is a huge mistake and problem to draw far reaching and catastrophic conclusions based on a one sided, overly simplified perspective that completely ignores the other (and IMO significantly more likely possibility) that she was in psychosis.
Shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but that is what Lindsay Clancy sought, and still seeks. There is substantial evidence of forethought in sending her husband out of their house to provide sufficient time to murder her three kids using exercise bands. The "pink" crazed female supporters insist that due to her status either as a "mother," or more generically as a woman, she should be "believed" and therefore exempt from the consequences of her actions, apparently due to a "female hormonal issue."
The claim that someone should be believed in a matter of criminal justice because of their status a mother, a woman, or whatever, is not "justice." No one's explanation for their conduct is to be credited because of "who" they are, but what they did or did not do, or whether they knew right from wrong at the time of the triple murder of Lindsay Clancy's children.
There were numerous printed signs and statements outside the courthouse and on social media that Lindsay Clancy should be "believe" and therefore not criminally responsible for her conduct because she was a "mother." There was also the related argument made that because men don't get pregnant and give birth that they should not be permitted to judge someone who does, and did so three times.
These are all claims by a good number, a significant number, of women that their personal status should earn exemption from the consequences of their actions. It is unclear how widespread this belief is amongst women, but Lindsay Clancy had nine women on her jury who agreed with her (though they are a numerically small sample and likely did not independently reach the same conclusion) and hundreds of public supporters positioned outside the courthouse, which should not have been permitted but that's another story. Reportedly, three female jurors made it a point of wearing pink.
It's unclear what percentage of the adult female population in America believed, and continue to believe, that Lindsay Clancy should have been found "not guilty" of murder because she was a mother or, more broadly, a woman, but the argument that her status should determine her fate, and not her personal conduct, is arguing for an exemption from the criminal laws for mothers and, conceivably, all women generally.
The discredited Me Too!" movement ran on the mantra to "Believe All Women." Same exemption from criminal laws sought by women.
How common this mindset is among women is difficult to determine, but if women are claiming exemptions from criminal justice because they are women, then it is no different than we give minors limited or full exemption from the consequences of their actions. If women want to be exempted from the consequences of their actions as children are, then women should be treated as the children they wish to be.
Shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but that is what Lindsay Clancy sought, and still seeks. There is substantial evidence of forethought in sending her husband out of their house to provide sufficient time to murder her three kids using exercise bands. The "pink" crazed female supporters insist that due to her status either as a "mother," or more generically as a woman, she should be "believed" and therefore exempt from the consequences of her actions, apparently due to a "female hormonal issue."
The claim that someone should be believed in a matter of criminal justice because of their status a mother, a woman, or whatever, is not "justice." No one's explanation for their conduct is to be credited because of "who" they are, but what they did or did not do, or whether they knew right from wrong at the time of the triple murder of Lindsay Clancy's children.
There were numerous printed signs and statements outside the courthouse and on social media that Lindsay Clancy should be "believe" and therefore not criminally responsible for her conduct because she was a "mother." There was also the related argument made that because men don't get pregnant and give birth that they should not be permitted to judge someone who does, and did so three times.
These are all claims by a good number, a significant number, of women that their personal status should earn exemption from the consequences of their actions. It is unclear how widespread this belief is amongst women, but Lindsay Clancy had nine women on her jury who agreed with her (though they are a numerically small sample and likely did not independently reach the same conclusion) and hundreds of public supporters positioned outside the courthouse, which should not have been permitted but that's another story. Reportedly, three female jurors made it a point of wearing pink.
It's unclear what percentage of the adult female population in America believed, and continue to believe, that Lindsay Clancy should have been found "not guilty" of murder because she was a mother or, more broadly, a woman, but the argument that her status should determine her fate, and not her personal conduct, is arguing for an exemption from the criminal laws for mothers and, conceivably, all women generally.
The discredited Me Too!" movement ran on the mantra to "Believe All Women." Same exemption from criminal laws sought by women.
How common this mindset is among women is difficult to determine, but if women are claiming exemptions from criminal justice because they are women, then it is no different than we give minors limited or full exemption from the consequences of their actions. If women want to be exempted from the consequences of their actions as children are, then women should be treated as the children they wish to be.
Are we a society that's a step away from recognizing Honor Killings as an acceptable social construct? It certainly seems there are those willing to accept such evils as legitimate behavior. Don't they realize that such actions can easily morph into an excuse for killing people for the wrong skin color, age, height or having a spouse you want.
You mean like muslims murdering their own daughters for the sake of the parents' "honor"? DemocRats feel (they don't think) that they are using islam to take & maintain power when it's the reverse. If the islamic takeover isn't stopped very soon it will be too late.
The sickness, madness is spreading!
Suburban Illinois boy dies in suspected domestic homicide as neighbors fear another Lindsay Clancy case:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/suburban-illinois-boy-dies-suspected-domestic-homicide-neighbors-fear-another-lindsay-clancy-case.amp
Sarah, thanks for that photo!
DJ