Lindsay Clancy Trial: What It Reveals About Our Cultural Moment
Editor's Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Regent University, its faculty, administration, or affiliates.
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
The jury foreman in the Clancy murder trial who made this statement was extremely frustrated with the decision making of one hold-out juror who refused to affirm a seemingly unanimous agreement for acquittal of the defendant by reason of insanity. Clancy, as described by her defense counsel as the “loving mother,” yet, according to The Free Press, “brought her three young children down to the basement of her home and strangled each of them to death, one at a time, slowly, horrifically, painfully.” The jurors who have gone public to date rolled back the curtains on their deliberations revealing that sympathy for Clancy far outweighed any sympathy actively accorded to the three murdered children. The cultural moment this story exposes is worth serious reflection. This reprise will consider the concerns about the law, the process, and the cultural facts.
A legal issue that certainly complicated this case is that Massachusetts law is unique in that it places the burden of proof for insanity on the prosecution to prove that the defendant who claims insanity is not insane. That means that a mere claim of the insanity defense is a presumption to be overcome, yet every other state law in America carries a burden of proof on the defendant who asserts the insanity defense. Proving that someone who claims insanity is in fact sane is a near impossibility – which is why the case was almost impossible for the Massachusetts jury.
Regarding process, the judge charged the jury of three men and nine women, with the duty of applying this law, as well as other laws. One revelation that has come out is that several of the jurors were medical nurses and they attempted to apply their knowledge to the evidence and facts. These efforts seemed to reveal echoes or hints of bullying of jurors. Once a juror publicly related that the lone hold-out juror was a black man, concerns arose that pressure to conform the will of that lone juror to the will of the other eleven might have been supported by racial prejudice.
And finally, the cultural moment spilled outside the courtroom when women began to gather outside the courthouse and began protesting on behalf of the defendant with energy and zeal. Why? Because the medical community let her down in their over-prescribing? Because of mental health bias in the legal system or the rest of the world? Because the world needs to understand the challenges mothers face in raising small children?
Each of these provide combustion on their own. Mixed together they deliver a witches brew that casts a cultural spell of chaos, making clarity and justice difficult to find. Other, additional facts, nonetheless, may help us explain this cultural moment. Journalist and bestselling author Megan Basham, suggested a deeper concern, making an abortion connection with the infanticide of the Clancy children. In an X post on September 4, 2026, she wrote, “Women are increasingly going to excuse child murder because 25% of American women (at least) have blood guilt on their hands that they have never reckoned with. A quarter of American women have already murdered their own children. So it should hardly surprise us that they identify with the killer rather than the victims.”
Could there be a connection – even if a fragmented one – between an apparent greater concern for the mental well-being of a mother who has admitted murdering her children versus the murder of the three children as connected with popular views embracing abortion as an asset of women’s rights? As proof, a new term has emerged on social media from the Clancy situation: “altruistic filicide,” which is the pathologisized and twisted idea that it is a good thing to murder one’s own child.
One can draw a theoretical straight line from the ideas of altruistic filicide and abortion to after birth abortion, or infanticide. The Journal of Medical Ethics published a discussion of this topic. Some medical scholars argued for after-birth abortion, claiming that infanticide should be permitted for the same reasons as abortion is permitted, and not for would-be interests of the newborn, or the unborn child, with both lacking the right to life, thus infanticide can be justified for the same reasons as abortion. Others argued that abortion and infanticide need to be placed in moral context, that the lack of a right to life is not decisive in the law – but rather every person no matter how small or what age has a constitutionally protected right to life. “Furthermore, the justificatory power of a given reason is a function of moral context,” arguing that “generalisations about reasons across dissimilar moral contexts are invalid.” Others defend abortion while decrying infanticide, and still others claim that the boundary between abortion and infanticide is an artificial legal and moral construct. If this is what current American medical ethics proffer it is no wonder that people are upset and confused by the Clancy trial.
One thing has been made perfectly clear in the confusion and fall out of the Clancy trial: our culture views children as optional, and as just an option they vary in value. In my research I have noted a serious decline in the value and veneration of children, from womb to adulthood, from experimentation to trafficking, from early debut of sexuality to child sacrifice. Underneath my findings is the fact that American culture has indeed dramatically devalued children.
Whether you think that, as her defense lawyer did, that justice for Lindsay Clancy was denied by a sole juror, or that her children were cruelly murdered by their mother, each of us is forced to think about what this cultural moment means. For the follower of Christ, it means that our hope is not in the law, or the process, or the culture. Psalm 8 asks what is man? The answer for the Christian redounds through the centuries from Genesis on that each of us is made in the image of God. This notion of Imago Dei, man made in the image of God, is the likeliest reason why that lone juror “had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.” Those three children were created in the image of God, as a reflection of the Almighty Himself.
