She Killed Her Three Children. Is She Guilty?

The Lindsay Clancy case sits at the intersection of two deeply held American instincts: the desire to protect the mentally ill from criminal stigma, and the equally powerful need to find someone—anyone—to blame when tragedy strikes. Rosenfield's piece cuts through the noise by refusing to let either instinct dominate. On one side, we have legitimate concerns about postpartum psychosis and whether a system that failed to hospitalize Clancy bears some responsibility. On the other, there's the uncomfortable reality that Clancy was, by all accounts, a functioning adult who made choices—however distorted by illness—that resulted in the deaths of three children. What makes this case so difficult is that both narratives contain truth. The medical system does fail mothers routinely, and postpartum mental health is scandalously underfunded and understudied. Yet to reduce Clancy to a mere victim of circumstance strips her of the moral agency that our justice system—and our society—requires us to recognize, even when we sympathize with the defendant. Rosenfield is right to resist the tidy conclusion that someone else must be responsible simply because the alternative is too painful to contemplate. The broader theme here is about how we handle tragedy in an age of instant moral judgment. Social media demanded a villain, and for many, the husband and the healthcare system fit the bill. But justice is rarely served by substituting one scapegoat for another. The Clancy case forces us to hold two uncomfortable truths simultaneously: that mental illness can drive people to do horrific things, and that we still expect individuals to be accountable for their actions, even when we understand the forces that shaped them. For readers seeking the full context of Rosenfield's argument, the original piece is available at RealClearPolitics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2026/08/19/she_killed_her_three_children_is_she_guilty_708462.html. Whether the jury ultimately convicts, acquits, or finds some middle ground, the debate this case has sparked will outlast the verdict—and that, perhaps, is the most important outcome of all.