04 Culture

In response to the ongoing trial of Lindsay Clancy, the woman who killed her three children in 2023, it seems women across the country are trying to quiet their consciences by swapping out pink pussy hats for pink T-shirts. These sympathizers have also raised more than $1 million for Clancy’s supportive parents. That stunning sum is akin to awarding a Golden Globe to an actress who publicly credits killing her offspring with advancing her career.

Was Clancy pro-abortion? Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t. Either way, the more revealing question isn’t what Clancy believed about abortion; it’s what the women rallying around her believe about when it’s morally acceptable to take innocent life. Thus, scarier than the woman in the courtroom, sitting in a wheelchair and staring blankly into space, are the hordes of women who may be finding solace and justification for the intentional ending of innocent human life somewhere else in the life cycle.

Is invoking Clancy’s mental illness to mitigate responsibility for her actions fundamentally different from invoking “health care” to justify abortion because a woman believes giving birth would cause her undue stress or derail her professional life? Abortion supporters can cite “reproductive freedom” all they want. That’s how it starts. The methodical murder of more than 65 million unborn human beings since Roe v. Wade is nothing more than permissible slaughter. But more important than which euphemisms we use for abortion and filicide is the message being sent to women who may come to believe that their overwhelming circumstances justify disposing of the unborn.

Under this moral framework, the prohibition is no longer simply, “It is wrong to intentionally end an innocent human life.” It has become, “It is wrong — unless circumstances make it permissible.” Even research on homicidal violence has identified this moral threshold: Many people condemn homicidal violence in principle, while identifying circumstances where they find it permissible. This concept applies to the Clancy case, where her female supporters appear to argue that even the irreversible decision to strangle three children is defensible based on circumstances.

Watch Louder with Crowder every weekday at 11:00 AM Eastern, only on Rumble Premium!The “mass psychosis” of deranged feminists defending Lindsay Clancy will go down as one of the most deranged movements in American history. This toxic femininity, however, did not begin after idiotic internet rumors about this case. According to Spencer Pratt, it started before COVID. This is why he said what needed to be said.

Pratt took to social media to bring attention to these mass delusions.

The Lindsay Clancy mass psychosis proves that a lot of people need to have their Wifi taken away. But this psychosis started many years before TikTok.

In one specific example, he described how a group of dads attacked a migrant who engaged in an evil act around their kids.

Some criminal migrant m*sturbates in front of children at a public beach; the dads rightfully beat the sh*t out of him, but a woman suffering from suicidal empathy intervenes to protect and comfort that child sex offender? When you see the invasion of Spain, you see a woke woman gleefully waving the invaders in. Is this what Matriarchy looks like? Where this kind of suicidal empathy that exploits the noble virtue of unconditional maternal compassion and perverts it towards the criminal dregs of society, all because wokeness now supersedes all virtue?”

It’s something of an unspoken rule that when you’re a reporter covering any story — let alone one involving three dead children — that the reporter should present oneself with an air of decorum, respect, and impartiality.

For one now-former Vanity Fair contributor, perhaps that rule should’ve actually been vocalized better to her.

See if you can spot who that ex-contributor was below:

Glamour contributor winks at the camera during the Lindsay Clancy trial.

Clancy is on trial for murdering her three children by strangling them with exercise bands, and Brittany Romano thought it was a good time to give the camera a wink.

Romano is now lashing out against… pic.twitter.com/e5YbMBTlFS

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 24, 2026

The Massachusetts woman who used exercise bands to strangle the life out of her three young children has a fan club of sorts.

Thousands of Lindsay Clancy supporters believe the 36-year-old killer is herself a victim.

Hundreds turned out for a rally Thursday at Plymouth Superior Courthouse — most of them women and many in pink shirts — carrying signs with fangirl slogans such as “Believe,” “She Needed Help” and “Peace For Lindsay,” the Associated Press reported.

They have leaned into claims that the “overburdened” mother was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she committed the heinous crimes. She also slit her wrists and neck and jumped out of a second-story window in a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed from the waist down, according to court documents.

“… [Clancy] not receiving the help she needed while going through PPP just reflects how hard it is as a woman to receive proper healthcare. her having suicidal thoughts wasn’t enough to get the help she needed. she KNEW she was in a crazy state of mind but got no support whatsoever,” wrote a commenter on Reddit earlier this month as Clancy’s trial became the talk of the nation.

Meanwhile, a Wisconsin “influencer” has set up a GoFundMe account for Mike and Paula Musgrove, Clancy’s parents, who, according to the page’s creator, “have spent years traveling back and forth, staying in hotels, attending court proceedings and ultimately relocating from Connecticut to Massachusetts so they could remain close to Lindsay.” The page includes an illustration of Clancy (apparently) in a wheelchair, her head buried in her hands, elbows resting on her knees. She is encircled by a host of women holding hands.