Gender politics obscure tragedy in Clancy trial

A Massachusetts jury is now deliberating the fate of Lindsay Clancy, who, horrifyingly, strangled her three children — ranging in age from 8 months to 5 years — and whose defense has argued that she was not criminally responsible for those acts because of severe mental illness.

Clancy, who suffered from postpartum anxiety and depression and repeatedly sought psychiatric help, has received support from some women who believe she deserves compassion as an overwhelmed mom let down by an unsupportive healthcare system. But there has also been a social media backlash against the pro-Clancy sentiment — where some have pointed to her supporters to justify grossly misogynistic tirades.

But, as often happens, the gender politics obscure a human tragedy.

While the jury will decide whether Clancy meets the legal definition of insanity, there is no question that she was seriously troubled, partly the result of postpartum conditions.

In a four-month period before the killings, she was prescribed 32 different drugs, including a dozen psychiatric medications. While she only took some of them and often switched drugs, she had six different medications in her system at the time of the killings in January 2023, including an anti-psychotic drug. The monitoring of her medicine use seems to have been ineffectual.

Some question Clancy’s account of hearing a voice that told her to kill the children. But there is ample evidence that before the killings, she repeatedly complained of scary, intrusive thoughts and “wanting it to be over.” Psychiatrists thought she was deteriorating.

Clancy’s detractors of both sexes, though mostly male, often describe her as a cold-blooded killer and a monster. Yet she had no apparent motive, not even a twisted one such as revenge against the children’s father. After the killings, she tried to kill herself; a jump from a second-floor window left her paralyzed from the waist down.

Turning Clancy into a symbol for beleaguered moms, as some have done, is misguided. She had frequent help from her parents; her husband worked from home after taking paternity leave. Social media conspiracy theories accusing the husband of framing her are even more outlandish and toxic.

But it’s at least as outrageous to turn Clancy and her supporters into a symbol for female evil or irrationality — as some large, mostly far-right social media accounts have done. Posts arguing that Clancy’s insanity defense is a reason to repeal women’s right to vote since it supposedly suggests that women aren’t responsible for their actions have proliferated.

Yet the insanity defense is hardly limited to women. Just last April, Ohio resident Matthew Schleier, who had admitted strangling his 5-year-old son in October 2024, was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Does that mean men’s voting rights should be taken away?

If Clancy is found not guilty, she will not get away with murder; she will be committed to a psychiatric facility. If she is found guilty, she will serve life in prison (Massachusetts has no death penalty). It’s not an excuse for the horrific acts she committed to say that we should take a serious look at the quality of psychiatric care — specifically, for postpartum mothers. But this is not, as some have suggested, about a male medical establishment oppressing women: The psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses who saw Clancy were nearly all female.

Too many people on both sides of this toxic debate have only minimal awareness of the facts of the case. But it’s the facts that matter, not the gender politics.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.