05/09/2026
Assuming you are already caught up on the details of the Lindsay Clancy case, I want to address the apologists defending Lindsay Clancy killing her children. Clancy’s own legal defense has not denied that Clancy committed this heinous act. Instead, they argue that she cannot be held legally culpable due to postpartum depression and a sudden episode of psychosis. Social media has taken this rationale and ran with it, concluding that this psychosis was influenced by a cocktail of drugs prescribed by negligent medical providers. Thus, Lindsay Clancy is a victim herself of the pharmaceutical industry.
This rhetoric muddies the waters by reframing justice around the mother’s mental health instead of the children’s deaths. Clancy has admitted she killed her children, but such inane arguments defending her actions necessitate restating the obvious.
We can discuss who bears the responsibility for the children’s murder, but that dilemma proceeds from the central fact — the children were murdered. If the medical providers are knowingly prescribed drugs with dangerous side-effects, they should be held to account. The scope of justice doesn’t have to be limited to one person, after all.
Of course, the court of law may determine Clancy’s actions more accurately describe manslaughter or excusable homicide, but the court of public opinion has already exposed the rotting heart of society, that people cannot acknowledge murder for what it is. Instead of pleading for justice for these children, a movement has emerged to exonerate the murderer. Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. In short, may God have mercy on us who would hurt His little ones and never forget — Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
