Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Questions We Should Be Asking About the Lindsay Clancy Case

Opinion

A solemn portrait of a woman looking down, bathed in dramatic light and shadow from window blinds, emphasizing solitude and deep thought in monochrome.

After the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, we must confront postpartum mental illness and ask how to better support mothers before tragedy strikes.

Viktoriya Skorikova/Getty Images

Three children are dead.

Nothing that follows should ever diminish that heartbreaking reality.


Cora, 5. Dawson, 3. Callan, 8 months old.

Their names have become part of a tragic legal case of a Massachusetts mother charged in the death of her three children; one that has captivated the nation and divided public opinion.

For weeks, Americans watched the trial of Lindsay Clancy unfold through testimony, debated evidence, and argued about guilt, innocence, and accountability. Then came the verdict that wasn't a verdict at all. After six weeks of testimony and seven days of deliberations, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision.

Reports indicate that eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror disagreed, resulting in a mistrial. Her defense attorney on Thursday filed a new motion to find her not guilty by “lack of criminal responsibility” The next court hearing is set for Sept. 29.

But the tragedy that unfolded in Massachusetts should not simply become another true-crime headline or political argument. It should serve as a wake-up call.

This trial has ignited a fierce debate. Some see this as a mother who committed the unthinkable and should be held fully accountable. Others see this as a woman who suffered from a severe psychiatric illness postpartum and a severe break from reality. Social media has become a battleground of opinions, accusations, and certainty.

But certainty is exactly what this case lacks. And as a nation, we must start asking some uncomfortable questions.

How many warning signs do families miss because they do not know what to look for? How many women avoid seeking help because they fear losing custody of their children or being stigmatized? How many healthcare systems are unprepared to identify a psychiatric emergency before it becomes a crisis?

As I followed this trial, it reminded me of several years ago when my sister gave birth to twins. Like many new mothers, she experienced the physical exhaustion, emotional stress, and overwhelming responsibility that comes with caring for newborns. I remember watching her navigate sleepless nights, constant feedings, and the pressure many mothers place on themselves to be everything for everyone. It was not easy.

While her experience was nothing like the tragedy that unfolded in the Lindsay Clancy case, it gave me a glimpse into how profoundly childbirth can affect a woman's physical, emotional, and mental well-being. It reminded me that postpartum challenges are often invisible to everyone except the person experiencing them.

Too often, we assume that because a mother looks fine on the outside, she is fine on the inside. We celebrate the arrival of a new baby but rarely ask whether the mother is receiving the support she needs. We admire her strength while overlooking her struggles.

My sister was fortunate to have support from family and loved ones. Not every mother does. And that reality should concern all of us.

No one disputes what happened. Clancy admitted to killing her three children before attempting to take her own life. The central question at trial was whether she was criminally responsible for her actions or whether severe postpartum psychosis rendered her incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of what she was doing. Mental health experts from both sides agreed she suffered from serious mental illness, though they disagreed about whether she understood right from wrong at the time of the killings.

It is possible to grieve for Cora, Dawson, and Callan while also acknowledging that severe mental illness may have played a profound role in their deaths. Those two truths can exist simultaneously. Compassion for one does not require abandoning compassion for the other.

The justice system will ultimately decide what happens next in the Lindsay Clancy case. Judges, attorneys, and perhaps another jury will wrestle with the legal questions. But there is a larger question that belongs to all of us

What kind of society do we want to be when confronted with unimaginable tragedy?

Do we immediately search for someone to hate? Or do we seek to understand how such devastation could occur and what can be done to prevent it from happening again? As a nation, we must confront the difficult questions around postpartum challenges and mental health and find meaningful ways to answer each one of these questions.

The deaths of three innocent children deserve more than public outrage. They deserve reflection. They deserve action. They deserve a renewed commitment to maternal mental health, early intervention, family support systems, and compassionate care.

Because if there is anything more heartbreaking than this tragedy itself, it is the possibility that we learn nothing from it.

And somewhere beneath the headlines, the verdicts, and the arguments are three children whose lives mattered far more than the debate that now surrounds them.


Noor Zoma is a Public Voices Fellow on Public Health with The OpEd Project and Blue Shield of California Foundation.


Read More

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep Reading Show less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep Reading Show less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it
Photo by Nellie Adamyan on Unsplash

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep Reading Show less
American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

Getty Images

Lawyers Must Reaffirm Their Oath to Defend the Constitution

Every lawyer admitted to practice in the United States takes a formal oath to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of the profession. In recent years, bar associations and courts around the country have held voluntary oath reaffirmation ceremonies, inviting lawyers to publicly renew their commitments and reaffirm the profession's responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

Between us, we have taken the oath eight times - having been admitted to practice law in six jurisdictions, across five states, and both having organized oath reaffirmation ceremonies in our respective Virginia hometowns.

Keep Reading Show less