The trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts nurse accused of strangling her three young children, has sparked a heated and polarizing debate. While the prosecution and defense agree on the factsâClancy admitted to the killingsâthe question of her culpability has divided public opinion. Now, a provocative op-ed in American Thinker suggests that the wave of female defenders may be motivated by something deeply personal: their own experiences with abortion.
The piece, written by Olivia Murray, argues that many women rushing to Clancy’s defense are “post-abortive” and see themselves in her. “They too have killed their kids in cold blood, and they see themselves in Lindsay,” Murray writes. “They need a scapegoat for when women murder their own, because they canât face what they too have actually done.”
Clancy, a nurse and mother of three, is currently on trial for the murders of her childrenâCora, Dawson, and Callanâwho were strangled with exercise bands. While Clancy and her attorneys do not dispute that she committed the acts, her defense argues she was suffering from severe mental illness, including bipolar disorder and postpartum psychosis, at the time. A forensic psychologist has confirmed these diagnoses.
Yet, despite the admission, a significant online movement has coalesced around Clancy. Supporters have raised over half a million dollars for her defense, with donations nearing $1 million as of this week. Some defenders blame the healthcare system, others blame men, and a few have even suggested that Clancy was not the perpetrator at allâpointing to her claim that she felt “outside of her body” during the killings. Some have gone so far as to allege that Patrick Clancy’s current wife, who reportedly bears a striking resemblance to Lindsay, was the actual killer.
Entertainer Lisa Rinna has publicly echoed this theory, claiming her therapist agreed that Patrick Clancy, not Lindsay, killed the children. “Women don’t strangle,” Rinna said on a podcast, adding that her therapist looked at her and said, “He did it.” Rinna responded, “Wow, yeah.”
Murray, however, dismisses these theories as “brain rot,” and insists that Clancy admitted to the murders and has not changed her story. “Sure, it could be some grand conspiracyâŚor it could just be another mother who snapped and killed her kids,” she writes.
The op-ed has ignited fierce backlash, with critics accusing Murray of making sweeping and offensive generalizations about women who have had abortions. Others have pointed out that postpartum psychosis is a recognized psychiatric emergency that can lead to tragic outcomes, and that Clancy’s case highlights the need for better mental health support for new mothers.
Still, Murray’s central argumentâthat women are defending Clancy because they themselves have “killed their kids” through abortionâhas resonated with some conservative readers, who see it as a indictment of a culture that normalizes the termination of pregnancy. “Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish,” the American Thinker article concludes.
The Clancy trial continues to unfold, and as it does, the broader cultural battle over abortion, motherhood, and justice is likely to intensify.
Source: www.americanthinker.com â https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/08/why-are-women-rushing-to-defend-lindsay-clancy-the-mother-accused-of-murdering-her-three-children-in-cold-blood/