The women who say “it could have been me” in response to the Lindsay Clancy case are expressing a troubling form of identification with a mother accused of killing her three children. Their statements may arise from fear, exhaustion, postpartum suffering, or feeling unheard by the medical system—but they must not obscure the fact that three children were killed and deserve to remain at the center of the public conversation.
Lindsay Clancy Support and the Meaning of “It Could Have Been Me”
At Lindsay Clancy’s trial, hundreds of supporters—many dressed in pink—gathered outside the courthouse carrying messages including “Believe,” “She Needed Help,” and “Peace For Lindsay.” Women in pink rallied in support of Lindsay Clancy at her trial for killing her three children.
Must See Also: Profiles of Leading Life-Affirming Clinics: Expanding Women’s Healthcare Choices
Some women have taken that solidarity further. USA Today reported a writer saying, “I could have been Lindsay Clancy.” Such a statement should be treated seriously. It is not necessarily an admission that the speaker intended harm, but it does raise an essential moral question: What does a person mean when she identifies herself with someone accused of strangling her own children?
Must See Also: Post-Birth — You Don’t Care?
Empathy Cannot Replace Accountability
People can rightly grieve for a mother suffering from profound psychiatric distress, depression, intrusive thoughts, exhaustion, or a failed system of care. A compassionate society should respond to mothers in crisis before they are isolated, medicated without adequate oversight, or left without practical help. But compassion has boundaries. It cannot become a way to soften, redirect, or evade the moral gravity of the deaths of children.
The legal dispute is not whether Lindsay Clancy killed Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy. Reporting on the trial states that both sides agree she killed them; the defense has argued that she suffered from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible, while prosecutors have argued that her actions were intentional and planned. PBS NewsHour reported on the jury’s deliberations after competing arguments over her mental state.
Must See Also: Pro-Life Fintech: How Pro-Life Payments Helps Businesses Fund Life
The Children Must Not Disappear
When rallies, essays, and social-media posts are devoted chiefly to Lindsay Clancy’s pain, it becomes easy for her children to disappear from the story. But Cora, Dawson, and Callan were not merely part of a cultural discussion about motherhood, mental illness, medication, or public-health policy. They were children with a right to safety, care, and life.
This is where the phrase “it could have been me” needs careful examination. If it means, “I understand what it is like to be exhausted, depressed, isolated, terrified, or unheard after childbirth,” that experience deserves compassion and help. If it means, “Under enough strain, any mother could kill her children,” it goes too far. Millions of mothers experience severe stress, anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, traumatic births, financial pressure, and inadequate support without killing their children. Suffering may explain the context of a tragedy; it does not erase the value of the victims or make their deaths inevitable.
Must See Also: Pro-Life Payments Stands for Life Against the Giants
Women Need Help Before Crisis
The appropriate response to the Clancy case is not contempt for women who identify with maternal distress. It is a demand for earlier, better, and more humane care for mothers—along with an unambiguous commitment to protecting children. The rally attendee April Vincent articulated one concern when she said, “Women are being dismissed, neglected and ignored when we speak up.” Whether or not one agrees with the political framing around the case, the plea for women to be heard before they reach a breaking point deserves attention.
Practical support should include family involvement, rest and relief from childcare duties, postpartum screening, prompt access to qualified mental-health professionals, careful monitoring of medication effects, church and community support, and emergency intervention when a mother says she fears she may harm herself or someone else. A mother in danger needs immediate support; children in her care need immediate protection. These duties must never be separated.
Must See Also: Pregnant Students’ Rights Act
A Pro-Life Response Holds Both Truths
A genuinely pro-life response refuses two errors. The first is indifference toward women facing terrifying psychological distress. The second is allowing empathy for a suffering adult to eclipse the humanity of children who cannot speak for themselves.
The women who say “it could have been me” should be challenged to clarify what they mean. If they mean they too felt abandoned, hopeless, overwhelmed, or mentally unwell after childbirth, the response should be: you deserve help, protection, and compassionate care. If they mean that killing one’s children is an understandable or ordinary extension of maternal suffering, the response must be different: no amount of empathy should make the lives of murdered children seem secondary.
Lindsay Clancy’s case should prompt a serious public conversation about maternal mental-health care, medical responsibility, and family support. But that conversation must begin and end with a fundamental truth: every child is a person, every child’s life has equal worth, and no cultural desire to empathize with a defendant should cause the victims to be forgotten.