There has been an extraordinary amount of sympathy expressed for Lindsay Clancy since a Massachusetts jury failed to reach a verdict on whether she was criminally responsible for killing her three young children. Thank God for the one man on the jury with common sense and objective reasoning.
I have sympathy, too. But first and foremost, my sympathy is for Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months old.
They were innocent children who depended completely on their mother for love, protection, and safety. Instead, their mother killed them.
That fact is not disputed. Clancy admitted strangling all three children. Her defense argued that postpartum psychosis rendered her not criminally responsible. Prosecutors maintained that she knew what she was doing and knew it was wrong. The jury deadlocked, resulting in a mistrial because the only man on the jury was objective and sane. I don’t stand with Lindsay Clancy.
I stand with her children.
Postpartum psychosis is real. Mental illness can be devastating, and women suffering severe postpartum psychiatric symptoms deserve immediate and comprehensive medical care.
But acknowledging an illness is not the same as automatically absolving someone of responsibility for committing a crime against another person.
Mental illness, medications and hormonal changes can be important evidence. In some circumstances, mental disease can be so profound that the law finds a person not criminally responsible. But it should never become an assumption that a diagnosis, medication or postpartum condition automatically excuses killing another human being.
Especially when she was a labor and delivery nurse. Especially when she had researched the internet on how to kill her kids. Especially when she sent her husband out on errands so she could carry out her premeditated plan. What is wrong with those jurors?
Three children are dead. Whatever compassion we extend to their mother, our justice system must remember them and their father.
We have been devaluing children for decades. I also believe this case belongs within a larger moral conversation that America has resisted: When does a child’s life have value, and who gets to decide? When does that little developing human have constitutional rights? Is it right that a baby only has value if the mother values it?
My own answer is that the value of a child’s life does not suddenly appear when the child passes through the birth canal. That is why I cannot separate this discussion entirely from abortion, and i know people will hate me for writing this. That’s ok. I’m used to it.
For decades, opponents of abortion have argued that allowing human life before birth to be treated as disposable would eventually affect the way society thinks about children more broadly and after they are born. Supporters of abortion rights profoundly disagree, arguing that abortion involves a woman’s bodily autonomy and presents fundamentally different moral and legal questions from killing a born child. But what if that baby is a female as well? Is she disposable? Is she not a completely separate human being?
I am not claiming abortion caused Lindsay Clancy to kill her children. I am making a broader cultural argument: When a society repeatedly debates when children’s lives deserve protection, we should not be surprised when profound disagreements develop about the value, rights and status of children. Are we surprised that a group of women would be chanting to support the mother who just brutally murdered her children and made the two and then one watch their siblings get murdered?
What is going on here?
Let’s move in the opposite direction toward valuing children more. Toward protecting them more. Toward recognizing their vulnerability. And toward remembering that the smallest human beings have no political constituency of their own.
But wait! There’s more! There are other possible implications of this case that trouble me.
Women spent generations fighting to be treated as the intellectual, professional, and legal equals of men.
Women are physicians, nurses, judges, prosecutors, police officers, soldiers, governors, CEOs and possibly president. If women can’t be trusted to control themselves with hormones, how can they be trusted to lead the country or be in charge of the nuclear button?
If hormones themselves become an excuse for criminal conduct, where does that principle end?
Men have hormones, too. Imagine a man accused of rape arguing that testosterone, sexual impulses or other biological forces overwhelmed his ability to control himself. Society would rightly demand much more before relieving him of criminal responsibility. Or maybe they wouldn’t. Maybe men would start getting off the hook for rape and murder.
Much of the conversation is about Lindsay. Her illness. Her medications. Her treatment. Her suffering.
Those are legitimate subjects, and the case has prompted renewed attention to postpartum mental health care.
Great, but what about Cora, Dawson, and Callan? We should be protecting the most vulnerable.
They couldn’t call a psychiatrist.
They couldn’t drive somewhere safe.
They couldn’t ask another adult to take custody of them.
They couldn’t defend themselves.
They trusted their mother.
We do not have to choose between compassion and accountability. Thank God there was a clear-thinking man on that jury!
We can have compassion for people suffering from severe mental illness while also having compassion for their victims.
We can acknowledge that psychiatric illness and medications can profoundly affect people without assuming they erase personal responsibility.
And we can recognize the biological realities women experience without reducing women to creatures controlled by their hormones. That is just ridiculous.
There have been copycats already, with moms killing their children. I have seen others treating their babies in a way I never would and putting it on TikTok!
Whatever ultimately happens in court, I hope America does not lose sight of the three people who cannot tell us their side of this story.
Children have rights, too. As well as their father, who is devastated. Children deserve protection. Children’s lives have value.
Parents who fear they may hurt their children must get away from them and seek help immediately. Call family. Call 911. Go to an emergency room. Take the child or children to the fire station and give them up to one of a million couples who have not had the privilege and gift of a sweet, innocent, unconditionally loving child. Put the children in the care of another responsible adult. There are alternatives to harming a child.
Cora, Dawson and Callan deserved the opportunity to grow up. They deserved birthdays and holidays, first days of school, graduations, careers, love, and families of their own.
I cannot join those who stand with Lindsay Clancy.
I stand with the murdered children, the father, and the grandparents who have been scarred forever.
