On Sunday, Fox News reported, “Calls to repeal women’s rights to vote are emerging from the online firestorm over the Lindsay Clancy trial, prompting Republican women to warn that the intraparty rhetoric could hurt the GOP.”
The fact that this article was published by Fox News was itself noteworthy. Press Baron Rupert Murdoch is one of the few remaining centers of power on the right who is strong enough to pick fights with Trump and his MAGA supporters. In recent years, Murdoch’s outlets have carved out a position for themselves as gatekeepers who work to protect the GOP brand from the most self-destructive impulses of MAGA. One recent example of this phenomenon is the decision to fire (or at least take off the air) the firebrand election denier Maria Bartiromo.
The Fox article was also significant for highlighting how the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy is being exploited by the hard right to justify misogyny. Clancy killed three of her children in 2023. Her legal defense was that she suffered from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. Eleven jurors voted to acquit Clancy based on this argument, but one juror resisted, leading to a mistrial.
Nine of the jurors who voted to acquit—presumably because they thought Clancy deserved pity rather than harsh punishment—were women; the lone holdout was a man. The hard right has seized on these facts to justify arguments that women are incapable of reason. The Fox article quoted a post on X that made a common argument: “The female jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial are speaking out about their deliberations and disagreements with the sole male holdout. The more they speak the better they make the case for repealing the 19th Amendment.”
“All the women are telling us we’re wrong. We should probably take their voices away.”
Typical fucking conservative logic. I hate these people
A mentally ill woman kills her kids, so women shouldn’t be able to vote?
What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?
Conservatism is about unequality. For them it’s just “nature” to collectively punish all people belonging to a given group that are less powerful.
If you’re part of a more powerful group, all your grievances with a group are automatically justified. If not, even if they were justified, you have to show the moral high ground by not acting out on them.
They give the officer a promotion.
What happens when a mentally ill man shoots a bunch of random people?
Thoughts and prayers.
Tragic lone wolf, nothing can be done
Something something bad apple
They give him a badge /satire
Hey, stop making this political! /s
I mean just go to the Notable Familicides section and observe the extraordinary amount of men and few women perpetrators.
Wouldn’t https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide be a more relevant link?
A 1999 U.S. Department of Justice study concluded that mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancybetween 1976 and 1997 in the United States, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children aged eight or older.[1] Parents were responsible for 61% of child murders under the age of five.[2]Sometimes, there is a combination of murder and suicide in filicide cases. On average, according to FBI statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States.[3]
An in-depth longitudinal study of 297 cases convicted of filicide and 45 of filicide-suicide in the United Kingdom between 1997 and 2006 showed that 37% of the perpetrators had a recorded mental illness at the time. The most common diagnoses were mood disorders and personality disorders rather than psychosis, but the latter accounted for 15% of cases. However – similar to findings in a large Danish study – the majority had not had contact with mental health services prior to the murders, and few had received treatment. Female perpetrators were more likely to have given birth as teenagers. Fathers were more likely to have been convicted of violent offences and have a history of substance misuse, and were more likely to kill multiple victims. Infants were more likely to be victims than older children, and a link to post-partum depression was suggested.[4]
I literally got banned from a very popular community for pointing this out once.
Apparently it’s misandrist to acknowledge simple facts.
The simple fact is that men disproportionately commit violent crimes, and it’s heavily tied to patriarchy enabling it.
I mean just look at how many people on that list are of a society and/or religion that enforces strict patriarchal rule of society and family.
Men in these environments are taught from childhood that they’re supposed to keep all members of their family under their thumb, and anything less makes them a fundamental failure of a man. So they abandon anything even remotely resembling empathy towards women and children to protect their own egos and status. Thus, violence becomes acceptable to enforce domination, in their minds.
You don’t have this in nearly the same capacity with women in any society or religion. It wasn’t even what happened in this case of murder.
It would seem facts don’t have a place right now. Can’t last too long. Ignoring reality has never worked out for long.
Unfortunately, trying to survive under insane regimes can be quite the trick.
Without looking into this. I would guess the bigger thing MAGA is leaning in is all the support Lindsay is getting. Women are posting TikToks holding their own babies with the title “Same Lindsay.” It’s a lot like the defund the police thing. It doesn’t matter what your actual message is, the way it’s being conveyed is way too easy to miss represent.
Without looking into this…
And that’s the part where you set the phone down and fuck off.
Aren’t those TikTok’s expressing solidarity in that they have also struggled with postpartum depression with little help or understanding? The interpretation that those women are suggesting they want to kill their children seems like a disingenuous one.
Yes, but that’s the point of the last part of my statement. It doesn’t matter what the actual message was or is. The way it was conveyed was way to easily misunderstood and was an obvious target.
was way to easily misunderstood
Misunderstood by you. I understood their point and I didn’t even watch any of their TikToks.
I’d be concerned about someone who made a “Same Lindsay” social media post. I would not generalize it to her whole gender.
Yeah, I agree with that. That’s the logical thing to think. But you know MAGA isn’t based in logic.
Same thing that happens every day when a mental man kills. Either shoot self, shot by cop, or mysteriously dies in custody.
Rarely do the mass murder men make it to trial.
Oh I feel bad for laughing so hard at this
Wow, a classic.
I wouldn’t say that
They could just say they don’t want women to vote because they tend to be more empathetic and compassionate and therefore vote against conservatives. Just tell the fucking truth for once.
Lol, but the conservative voter base believe their wives are subservient and will vote the same as the husband. Head of the household and alk that. Heaven forbid women have minds of their own!
/s for the treacle like wits amongst us
I didn’t think they trouble themselves with the truth very often.
That seems like political suicide. Either no one votes for your insanely shitty platform or idiots do and then you have a revolution. Because we’re not going back, hard stop.
People said the same thing about abortion, and yet here we are
Yup. Barely a peep when it happened.
Gestures at the last twelve years
From everything they’re doing it doesn’t look like they ever want to have a fair vote.
Nine of the jurors who voted to acquit—presumably because they thought Clancy deserved pity
I don’t think this is why they voted to acquit. It was cause she knew there was a problem and was reaching out and doing all the right things and nobody was helping her.
This was an entirely avoidable case in a country where we care about mental health.
I didn’t know anything about this case besides its existence, but it looks like she had plenty of professional assistance, a number of prescriptions that were both taken and not, recommendations of hospitalization that were declined and later accepted, and on and on. I’m not saying the system didn’t fail her, but she had a lot of help along the way. I would not call this a traditional case of someone falling through the cracks.
There are also indications that social stigma on her and her husband’s part caused care to be declined at times. That’s a separate issue that we need to address as a society.
It is absolutely not lol I watched until the prosecution rested, it’s because the Massachusetts law is that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was sane at and during the incident, for a person who had been to a psychiatric hospital multiple times and was on trazadone, an ssri, and was hardly sleeping and wrote in her diary she was having hallucinations. Even if you think she was sane at the time that alone is enough for reasonable doubt.
She got mental health care and I would argue with one doctor pretty good care, but US mental health care just sucks. I would also say it’s still her fault for not leaving when she started going downhill (and told her mom she had thoughts of hurting the kids), and because I think it was more of a murder-suicide than psychosis. It’s your responsibility to leave at that point if you feel like you might be a danger to people around you.
the Massachusetts law is that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was sane at and during the incident
How does this not prevent the prosecution of all crimes? How could you ever prove that about anyone, ever?
Well it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, and most don’t plead insanity because most people won’t believe “oh he went insane so he robbed a bank” unless they have a reason to. This lady was going downhill for months.
I didnt really follow the case. How was she turned down or how did it happen that help was refused?
Like were her doctors complete asshats or what exactly happened? It doesnt help that there were already two kids, like was her husband having her constantly pump out kids? Was there any discussion about constant
It really is the best to have to live in a society where people who say this shit aren’t only tolerated, but provided with platforms (and sometimes straight cash from far right lunatics) to push it.
Especially when I’m old enough to remember when this was decidedly not the case. I remember what it was like, and I’m fucking furious that they took it away from us.
Our society has been poisoned.
Especially when I’m old enough to remember when this was decidedly not the case.
It was only a decade ago!!!
Same. It’s so sad.
Sure but I’m sure if a man kills his wife and children they invite him to join.
Never mind the weekly family
annihilators who are not women and who never make the news. Same with any other issue about women. They don’t actually care unless they can exploit it to harm us while pretending otherwise.bad thing: 😐 bad thing, woman: well clearly this says a lot about women as a whole and they get a pass for everything and…
I hate how people keep emphasizing “the one holdout was male!!!”. The other two men in the jury voted with the women. I get that there’s a lot of theories about how and why gender matters in this case, but the gender of the one holdout is really a meaningless piece of information. If gender had nothing to do with it, there would still be a 50/50 chance of the one holdout being a man.
The Lindsay Clancy case did generate some genuinely disturbing online rhetoric. There are, in fact, fringe conservative and MAGA-adjacent accounts calling for the repeal of the 19th Amendment, and there is even a petition explicitly connecting the Clancy case to a demand to repeal women’s suffrage. That part is real.
But that is very different from saying “MAGA is exploiting the Lindsay Clancy case to try to end women’s right to vote.” There is no evidence that the MAGA movement, the Republican Party, Congress, or any serious political organization is pursuing repeal of the 19th Amendment because of this case. What exists is a fringe online reaction that has been amplified because it is outrageous.
The actual court case has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s voting rights. It was a criminal trial concerning whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children. The jury ultimately deadlocked 11–1 and the judge declared a mistrial.
And frankly, I think the lone holdout juror deserves some credit for doing exactly what a juror is supposed to do: make his own judgment rather than surrender his position simply because eleven other people disagreed with him. Whether his interpretation of the evidence and reasonable-doubt standard was correct is a legitimate question. But unanimity exists precisely because one juror is allowed to disagree. The defense even attempted to have the juror removed, and the judge declined to do so.
That’s not “MAGA ending women’s voting rights.” That’s the jury system functioning as designed, even if the result is frustrating.
The Nation is taking a real but extremely fringe online phenomenon and presenting it in its headline as though it represents an organized political effort to abolish women’s suffrage. That is sensationalism, and it is dangerously close to misinformation because the headline encourages readers to infer a political movement that the evidence does not establish.
There is certainly room to criticize people who genuinely advocate repealing the 19th Amendment. I would criticize that position myself. But we should not turn a handful of inflammatory social-media accounts into “MAGA is trying to end women’s right to vote.”
And if this is a moderated community, this is exactly where better moderation matters. A provocative political claim can be discussed, but the title should accurately describe what the linked article actually establishes. “Fringe MAGA-adjacent activists are calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment following the Clancy mistrial” would be a defensible description. “MAGA is exploiting the case to end women’s right to vote” is a much broader claim that the evidence simply does not support.
Disclaimer: Nothing in my comment should be interpreted as support for MAGA, the political right, conservatism, or any effort whatsoever to repeal the 19th Amendment or restrict women’s rights. I oppose those positions. My objection here is specifically to sensationalized and misleading claims that take fringe rhetoric and present it as an established political movement. I support equal rights and the fundamental human rights afforded to people regardless of sex, race, religion, political affiliation, or any other personal characteristic. Fact-checking exaggerated claims is not an endorsement of the people or ideology being discussed. It is simply an insistence that political arguments be based on what the evidence actually demonstrates.
Those supposed fringe online reactions are being platformed on Fox News. It’s being put into mainstream discourse.
I have seen a significantly larger amount of discourse against women’s rights with this case than just a few fringe extremist accounts.
I mean yes… But the conjecture aside the fact stand on their own merits.
Fucks sake this so messed up. Her husband did it, this Bullshit is what we call “sweeping under the rug”
This is such a dumb and obvious distraction. The only time an amendment has been repealed in 250 years of the USA is prohibition. You need 2/3 AND 75% of all states to ratify it, which is 38 of 50. Currently there are 15 “always blue” states (in recent years). Even then, all democrats will vote against it, and we’ve never had a supermajority of both the house and senate in the last 120 years and likely never will. The last time it came close was in 1930 with only 62% GOP.
This is just distracting the democrats while republicans are activity doing worse shit that is happening instead of “thinking about happening”. We need to stay vigilant on what’s possible and happening and what is a distraction and never happening.
They’re slowly eroding women’s rights. I was told to my face that Roe v Wade was never going to be overturned, that it was a distraction, that I was overreacting.
Maybe they won’t be able to strip women’s right to vote, but they’re doing everything they can to do so and they’ll be able to take some of our rights away in the interim. As a compromise.
Based on legal history Clancy should be in prison. I agree that mother’s need more help, but there’s no way we will ever provide the level of care Clancy received. (every family is not getting a nanny and cleaners to help out.) If she’s found not guilty then that needs to be applied to everyone equally. There are several cases right now that are very simular. We could end up with men and women who killed their whole family walking around free. That’s not justice.
Edit: Letting her even spend the rest of her life in a hospital would be a major departure for how we treated poorer and darker women. The narrative around this whole case has me wondering whose running the PR campaign for Clancy and why? The judge should have sequestered the Jury. I think redu was the best outcome once it turned into a circus.
Asserting that Clancy should be unfairly punished because poor women of color are treated unfairly isn’t the argument I would use.
That’s not what I’m asserting. That’s how the legal system works in cases. If she was found not guilty, going forward there would be massive changes. I’m asking why her? How is the bias of the judge not being reviewed? Is sending a triple murderer regardless of circumstances to a facility with possible reintegration into society safe? Yes, every case is different but we don’t even have the will to feed our people. The solution they will come up with won’t benefit women. It’s going to be more padded rooms and women losing custody for being a little depressed.
Andrea Yates was retried and found not guilty by reason of insanity for killing her children during a bout of postpartum psychosis. This isn’t a novel case in the slightest.
Yes. Which is good. I still don’t think she should be allowed to reintegrate into society because of it. I don’t agree with the death penalty and I want men/women who have other psychotic brakes to get the same judgment. That’s all I’m saying.
She’s not walking free tho. She’s going to a psychiatric hospital instead of a prison.
I know. But that can’t be a set amount of time. She could theoretically get out at some point. And once again, that’s fine as long as everyone else who commits a murder during psychosis gets the same thing. Same situation, same judge, and the judge didn’t even allow that ex-mother use her psychosis as a defense. The only difference was the skin color and economic bracket. Luckily that woman is getting a new trail. What about men who do harm when psychotic episodes happen? Even if we could return to the 1920s way of locking away the criminally mentally ill we are a long way from even that.
If you truly want justice, then what is more just than rehabilitation?
Rehabilitation does not always mean reintegration. I am not saying to throw her in a hole or anything. She still deserves life, love, community, education, etc., just as part of a separate community for those who crossed lines. We are not talking about a simple crime here. I have compassion and understand as someone who has lost touch with reality. I took accountability for those I harmed when I was not in control, and under no situation would I want to be found innocent if I took the lives of those closest to me (hell, anyone, not just loved ones). I personally believe prison is only for violent, sexual, and white-collar criminals. I do wish our prisons were closer to Norway’s. No one deserves the inhumane treatment of American prisons. But once again, I think large cases like this have deeper implications than what is on the surface. Let us be more careful who we choose to champion when injustice is done.
massachusetts has extreme leniency in that the prosecution has to prove she was sane at the time beyond reasonable doubt, which is basically impossible, so not guilty and to the hospital she goes is the only outcome I see.
The narrative is because women (and anyone who has gone through mental health experiences like hers and has empathy) see their own struggles in what this lady went through, and people who never went through it think “lol woman get off because she was sad ok then.” I think she’s guilty and it’s absolutely her fault for not leaving when she realized she was going downhill, but I can still empathize with how hard her mental health situation was.
Even when I had thoughts about harming those I truly hated and had the opportunity, I always removed myself from the situation. I know what it is like to lose touch with reality; I was still expected to take accountability after getting healthy and ultimately did. But if I had harmed so many people to this level, there is no way my mentally healthy self would plead “Not Guilty.”
Yeah I mean I can’t super blame a mother who’s extremely anxious and depressed for not wanting to leave her kids. If she’s having those thoughts, knowing the mental state she’s in, it’s still 100% on her to leave, like you said. Sucks that she was even in that position but :\
She remembers taking each of their lives. I don’t understand how a sain person would want to be eventually free after those memories. I’d be too afraid to be around anyone let alone want to continue fighting a legal battle and being on national news. We should be focusing our energy on the tens of millions of parents struggling that still have their children. Those are the heros who’s names should be all over the news.
She tried to kill herself. She didn’t want to be around after the murders.
Yes, and are you saying that attempting absolves someone of responsibility? What is she doing now? Wanting accountability for herself? No. She wants to start her new life and move on. Other parents who know they harmed their family under similar situations accepted their fates. Their stories are far more deserving. We are falling for a wealthy persons paid PR campaign, without seeing the bigger picture.
I will say this until I am blue in the face and die on this hill. This woman does not deserve to be the face of postpartum mental illness. There are tens of millions of parents fighting mental illness who do not harm their families. There are those who have, who are willing to actually have their message be positive and not performative. Championing this particular case will have negative repercussions for parents and children. It will lower the bar needed to take children away from homes and lower the legal competency of women.
I was responding to this part of your comment:
I don’t understand how a sain person would want to be eventually free after those memories. I’d be too afraid to be around anyone let alone want to continue fighting a legal battle and being on national news.
She wasn’t sane. She tried to kill herself. She didn’t want to be around anyone after the murders.
This woman does not deserve to be the face of postpartum mental illness.
Doesn’t deserve to be the face? Do you hear yourself? Who “deserves” to be the face of a psychotic break? You have a clear misunderstanding of the level of control someone has when they are experiencing postpartum psychosis.
I thought it was between jail and a “loony bin” not jail and freedom?
Looney bin can’t be prison sentence. We have prison with hospital/medical wards. Why is that not acceptable?
LMAO all the retarded MAGA wives fucked around and found out.